http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/

In article
>,
DaleW > wrote:

> http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/

Remeber what the WS award did to Cinque Cepage, a middling cab blend
that doubled in price overnight!!

On Aug 20, 8:15�am, DaleW > wrote:
> http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/

LOL! I know of a restaurant that sent the exact same wine list and
menu for many years and kept getting the award of excellence. The
restauranteur felt that the small fee ($250) was worth the cost in
terms of marketing and advertising. Makes you kinda wonder about
their wine rating system!

If I remember correctly, a Belgian restaurant was lauded if not even awarded
one thingy by Guide Michelin a few years back - trouble was, it had not
opened yet when the Guide was published. Owner apparently in some way
affiliated with GM, or that may be a vile calumny.
Cheers
Nils

On Aug 20, 9:38�am, Lawrence Leichtman > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> �DaleW > wrote:
> >http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/
>
> Remeber what the WS award did to Cinque Cepage, a middling cab blend
> that doubled in price overnight!!

Yes, that was Chateau St Jean's "Bordeaux" blend that sold for about
$30 and jumped to as much as $100 overnight after being named wine of
the year by WS. The wine really never did much since.

"Bi!!" > wrote in message
...
snip

Yes, that was Chateau St Jean's "Bordeaux" blend that sold for about
$30 and jumped to as much as $100 overnight after being named wine of
the year by WS. The wine really never did much since.

It was a good $30 bottle...and I recently had one, taste very similar to
when it was released.

On Aug 20, 8:15*am, DaleW > wrote:
> http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/

I'm still not a fan of the WS awards, except for maybe the top level
ones they truly don't mean anything. But in fairness, it sounds like
Robin Goldstein's blog tells a rather incomplete story. This is the
response from Thomas Matthews, editor of WS:


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."
__________________

I still don't think much of the awards, but it's clear that if WS is
accurate in its description, Goldstein was less than candid in his
description of the scam.

On Aug 20, 5:48 pm, DaleW > wrote:
> On Aug 20, 8:15 am, DaleW > wrote:
>
> >http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/
>
> I'm still not a fan of the WS awards, except for maybe the top level
> ones they truly don't mean anything. But in fairness, it sounds like
> Robin Goldstein's blog tells a rather incomplete story. This is the
> response from Thomas Matthews, editor of WS:
>
> 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."
> __________________
>
> I still don't think much of the awards, but it's clear that if WS is
> accurate in its description, Goldstein was less than candid in his
> description of the scam.

Dale,
I read the response earlier today and it just seemed like damage
control to me. WS did zero fact checking. Posts on Chowhound are
dubious at best. They can spin this any way they want to. It caught
them with their pants down, in my opinion. The last time I applied for
their "award" was 10 years ago. I have a pretty serious wine list. I
paid the money and got the Award of Excellence, the minimum award.
4500 restaurants sending them $250 adds up to a lot of money. You
would expect more.

Mark Slater wrote:
> On Aug 20, 5:48 pm, DaleW > wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 8:15 am, DaleW > wrote:
>>
>>> http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/
>> I'm still not a fan of the WS awards, except for maybe the top level
>> ones they truly don't mean anything. But in fairness, it sounds like
>> Robin Goldstein's blog tells a rather incomplete story. This is the
>> response from Thomas Matthews, editor of WS:
>>
>> 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."
>> __________________
>>
>> I still don't think much of the awards, but it's clear that if WS is
>> accurate in its description, Goldstein was less than candid in his
>> description of the scam.
>
> Dale,
> I read the response earlier today and it just seemed like damage
> control to me. WS did zero fact checking. Posts on Chowhound are
> dubious at best. They can spin this any way they want to. It caught
> them with their pants down, in my opinion. The last time I applied for
> their "award" was 10 years ago. I have a pretty serious wine list. I
> paid the money and got the Award of Excellence, the minimum award.
> 4500 restaurants sending them $250 adds up to a lot of money. You
> would expect more.

As anyone intimate with the industry always knew...WS is a great
publication for the people who sell wine, but absolutely meaningless for
those who buy that wine..

I personally know of many restaurants in South Florida whose wine lists
are abominable, both in selection and price, but have a wall full of WS
awards gathered over the years.

Which restaurants are you talking about? I visit Ft. Laurderdale area
regularly.

My favorite places, Anthony's Runway 84, Cafe Martaranos, Valentinos,
Catalans etc.



"responder" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mark Slater wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 5:48 pm, DaleW > wrote:
>>> On Aug 20, 8:15 am, DaleW > wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/
>>> I'm still not a fan of the WS awards, except for maybe the top level
>>> ones they truly don't mean anything. But in fairness, it sounds like
>>> Robin Goldstein's blog tells a rather incomplete story. This is the
>>> response from Thomas Matthews, editor of WS:
>>>
>>> 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."
>>> __________________
>>>
>>> I still don't think much of the awards, but it's clear that if WS is
>>> accurate in its description, Goldstein was less than candid in his
>>> description of the scam.
>>
>> Dale,
>> I read the response earlier today and it just seemed like damage
>> control to me. WS did zero fact checking. Posts on Chowhound are
>> dubious at best. They can spin this any way they want to. It caught
>> them with their pants down, in my opinion. The last time I applied for
>> their "award" was 10 years ago. I have a pretty serious wine list. I
>> paid the money and got the Award of Excellence, the minimum award.
>> 4500 restaurants sending them $250 adds up to a lot of money. You
>> would expect more.
>
> As anyone intimate with the industry always knew...WS is a great
> publication for the people who sell wine, but absolutely meaningless for
> those who buy that wine..
>
> I personally know of many restaurants in South Florida whose wine lists
> are abominable, both in selection and price, but have a wall full of WS
> awards gathered over the years.

On Aug 21, 1:00*am, Mark Slater > wrote:
> On Aug 20, 5:48 pm, DaleW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 8:15 am, DaleW > wrote:
>
> > >http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/
>
> > I'm still not a fan of the WS awards, except for maybe the top level
> > ones they truly don't mean anything. But in fairness, it sounds like
> > Robin Goldstein's blog tells a rather incomplete story. This is the
> > response from Thomas Matthews, editor of WS:
>
> > 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."
> > __________________
>
> > I still don't think much of the awards, but it's clear that if WS is
> > accurate in its description, Goldstein was less than candid in his
> > description of the scam.
>
> Dale,
> I read the response earlier today and it just seemed like damage
> control to me. WS did zero fact checking. Posts on Chowhound are
> dubious at best. They can spin this any way they want to. It caught
> them with their pants down, in my opinion. The last time I applied for
> their "award" was 10 years ago. I have a pretty serious wine list. I
> paid the money and got the Award of Excellence, the minimum award.
> 4500 restaurants sending them $250 adds up to a lot of money. You
> would expect more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mark,
I'm on record here as saying the basic award is meaningless. It's
totally based on a submitted list, and makes no investigation into
storage, stemware, service knowledge, etc. I think it's a sham to call
it an award, it's an ad that just requires someone to put together a
list that shows a little breadth and decent organization (listing
vintages and appellations). There's not even any verification it IS
the actual list.

But, I did think that Goldstein was a little deceptive in his
description of scam:
1) he didn't mention seeding Chowhound with fake positive posts,
setting up a telephone number and website, etc. WS says they don't
make physical visits to the lower tier award winners, and obviously
choosing a non-US site was intentional.
2) he didn't mention that he was listing only 15 out of more than 250
wines listed.
3) the 15 low scoring wines he mentioned are mostly wines I wouldn't
mind trying (Soldera, Giacosa, Ceretto, Caparzo, Sassacaia, etc), some
from good vintages. Maybe the person lookign at the list had a better
idea of what is good than just looking up scores.

This certainly didn't improve my idea of the WS awards. The only thing
that seeing an Award of Excellence does for me is assure me they serve
wine. But I thought it was worth posting Matthews' response, as
Goldstein's presentation left out a few things.

Thanks for the confirmation on the lobster burgers!

On Aug 21, 8:29 am, DaleW > wrote:
> On Aug 21, 1:00 am, Mark Slater > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 5:48 pm, DaleW > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 20, 8:15 am, DaleW > wrote:
>
> > > >http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/
>
> > > I'm still not a fan of the WS awards, except for maybe the top level
> > > ones they truly don't mean anything. But in fairness, it sounds like
> > > Robin Goldstein's blog tells a rather incomplete story. This is the
> > > response from Thomas Matthews, editor of WS:
>
> > > 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."
> > > __________________
>
> > > I still don't think much of the awards, but it's clear that if WS is
> > > accurate in its description, Goldstein was less than candid in his
> > > description of the scam.
>
> > Dale,
> > I read the response earlier today and it just seemed like damage
> > control to me. WS did zero fact checking. Posts on Chowhound are
> > dubious at best. They can spin this any way they want to. It caught
> > them with their pants down, in my opinion. The last time I applied for
> > their "award" was 10 years ago. I have a pretty serious wine list. I
> > paid the money and got the Award of Excellence, the minimum award.
> > 4500 restaurants sending them $250 adds up to a lot of money. You
> > would expect more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Mark,
> I'm on record here as saying the basic award is meaningless. It's
> totally based on a submitted list, and makes no investigation into
> storage, stemware, service knowledge, etc. I think it's a sham to call
> it an award, it's an ad that just requires someone to put together a
> list that shows a little breadth and decent organization (listing
> vintages and appellations). There's not even any verification it IS
> the actual list.
>
> But, I did think that Goldstein was a little deceptive in his
> description of scam:
> 1) he didn't mention seeding Chowhound with fake positive posts,
> setting up a telephone number and website, etc. WS says they don't
> make physical visits to the lower tier award winners, and obviously
> choosing a non-US site was intentional.
> 2) he didn't mention that he was listing only 15 out of more than 250
> wines listed.
> 3) the 15 low scoring wines he mentioned are mostly wines I wouldn't
> mind trying (Soldera, Giacosa, Ceretto, Caparzo, Sassacaia, etc), some
> from good vintages. Maybe the person lookign at the list had a better
> idea of what is good than just looking up scores.
>
> This certainly didn't improve my idea of the WS awards. The only thing
> that seeing an Award of Excellence does for me is assure me they serve
> wine. But I thought it was worth posting Matthews' response, as
> Goldstein's presentation left out a few things.
>
> Thanks for the confirmation on the lobster burgers!

Dale,
I see your point and agree with you about Robin Goldstein's
disclosure. I remember Wine Spectator when it was a paper magazine
folded in half with two staples in the middle. I never much cared for
the tasting by committee approach. I ran a Grand Award cellar at the
Watergate Hotel for many years and appreciated the recognition then,
however naive about the business I might have been at the time. Now
the Grand Award formula is easy to accomplish but it goes against my
idea of what a great, well rounded wine list is. Endless numbers of
verticals and a ton of trophy bottles is not what the average diner is
looking for. Value and quality are, at whatever price point you
choose, $40 or $400.

As for Riesling, it is my mission to make at least one convert every
day!
Mark

Do you like the Alsace Albert Mann? That is one that I enjoy...have the 06
in celler now. The one that is "Cuvee Albert"

Inexpensive, dry but full of fruit...my everyday favorite...not at all fat.


"Mark Slater" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 21, 8:29 am, DaleW > wrote:
> On Aug 21, 1:00 am, Mark Slater > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 5:48 pm, DaleW > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 20, 8:15 am, DaleW > wrote:
>
> > > >http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/
>
> > > I'm still not a fan of the WS awards, except for maybe the top level
> > > ones they truly don't mean anything. But in fairness, it sounds like
> > > Robin Goldstein's blog tells a rather incomplete story. This is the
> > > response from Thomas Matthews, editor of WS:
>
> > > 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."
> > > __________________
>
> > > I still don't think much of the awards, but it's clear that if WS is
> > > accurate in its description, Goldstein was less than candid in his
> > > description of the scam.
>
> > Dale,
> > I read the response earlier today and it just seemed like damage
> > control to me. WS did zero fact checking. Posts on Chowhound are
> > dubious at best. They can spin this any way they want to. It caught
> > them with their pants down, in my opinion. The last time I applied for
> > their "award" was 10 years ago. I have a pretty serious wine list. I
> > paid the money and got the Award of Excellence, the minimum award.
> > 4500 restaurants sending them $250 adds up to a lot of money. You
> > would expect more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Mark,
> I'm on record here as saying the basic award is meaningless. It's
> totally based on a submitted list, and makes no investigation into
> storage, stemware, service knowledge, etc. I think it's a sham to call
> it an award, it's an ad that just requires someone to put together a
> list that shows a little breadth and decent organization (listing
> vintages and appellations). There's not even any verification it IS
> the actual list.
>
> But, I did think that Goldstein was a little deceptive in his
> description of scam:
> 1) he didn't mention seeding Chowhound with fake positive posts,
> setting up a telephone number and website, etc. WS says they don't
> make physical visits to the lower tier award winners, and obviously
> choosing a non-US site was intentional.
> 2) he didn't mention that he was listing only 15 out of more than 250
> wines listed.
> 3) the 15 low scoring wines he mentioned are mostly wines I wouldn't
> mind trying (Soldera, Giacosa, Ceretto, Caparzo, Sassacaia, etc), some
> from good vintages. Maybe the person lookign at the list had a better
> idea of what is good than just looking up scores.
>
> This certainly didn't improve my idea of the WS awards. The only thing
> that seeing an Award of Excellence does for me is assure me they serve
> wine. But I thought it was worth posting Matthews' response, as
> Goldstein's presentation left out a few things.
>
> Thanks for the confirmation on the lobster burgers!

Dale,
I see your point and agree with you about Robin Goldstein's
disclosure. I remember Wine Spectator when it was a paper magazine
folded in half with two staples in the middle. I never much cared for
the tasting by committee approach. I ran a Grand Award cellar at the
Watergate Hotel for many years and appreciated the recognition then,
however naive about the business I might have been at the time. Now
the Grand Award formula is easy to accomplish but it goes against my
idea of what a great, well rounded wine list is. Endless numbers of
verticals and a ton of trophy bottles is not what the average diner is
looking for. Value and quality are, at whatever price point you
choose, $40 or $400.

As for Riesling, it is my mission to make at least one convert every
day!
Mark

On Aug 21, 10:06 am, "Richard Neidich" > wrote:
> Do you like the Alsace Albert Mann? That is one that I enjoy...have the 06
> in celler now. The one that is "Cuvee Albert"
>
> Inexpensive, dry but full of fruit...my everyday favorite...not at all fat.

I do have some of the Grand Cru Pinot Gris in cellar.

The one I have several bottles of, but have not had as they were a gift is
as follows:

2004 Grand Cru Hengst....

Any good?


"Mark Slater" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 21, 10:06 am, "Richard Neidich" > wrote:
> Do you like the Alsace Albert Mann? That is one that I enjoy...have the
> 06
> in celler now. The one that is "Cuvee Albert"
>
> Inexpensive, dry but full of fruit...my everyday favorite...not at all
> fat.
>
> "Mark Slater" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 21, 8:29 am, DaleW > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 21, 1:00 am, Mark Slater > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 20, 5:48 pm, DaleW > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 20, 8:15 am, DaleW > wrote:
>
> > > > >http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/
>
> > > > I'm still not a fan of the WS awards, except for maybe the top level
> > > > ones they truly don't mean anything. But in fairness, it sounds like
> > > > Robin Goldstein's blog tells a rather incomplete story. This is the
> > > > response from Thomas Matthews, editor of WS:
>
> > > > 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."
> > > > __________________
>
> > > > I still don't think much of the awards, but it's clear that if WS is
> > > > accurate in its description, Goldstein was less than candid in his
> > > > description of the scam.
>
> > > Dale,
> > > I read the response earlier today and it just seemed like damage
> > > control to me. WS did zero fact checking. Posts on Chowhound are
> > > dubious at best. They can spin this any way they want to. It caught
> > > them with their pants down, in my opinion. The last time I applied for
> > > their "award" was 10 years ago. I have a pretty serious wine list. I
> > > paid the money and got the Award of Excellence, the minimum award.
> > > 4500 restaurants sending them $250 adds up to a lot of money. You
> > > would expect more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Mark,
> > I'm on record here as saying the basic award is meaningless. It's
> > totally based on a submitted list, and makes no investigation into
> > storage, stemware, service knowledge, etc. I think it's a sham to call
> > it an award, it's an ad that just requires someone to put together a
> > list that shows a little breadth and decent organization (listing
> > vintages and appellations). There's not even any verification it IS
> > the actual list.
>
> > But, I did think that Goldstein was a little deceptive in his
> > description of scam:
> > 1) he didn't mention seeding Chowhound with fake positive posts,
> > setting up a telephone number and website, etc. WS says they don't
> > make physical visits to the lower tier award winners, and obviously
> > choosing a non-US site was intentional.
> > 2) he didn't mention that he was listing only 15 out of more than 250
> > wines listed.
> > 3) the 15 low scoring wines he mentioned are mostly wines I wouldn't
> > mind trying (Soldera, Giacosa, Ceretto, Caparzo, Sassacaia, etc), some
> > from good vintages. Maybe the person lookign at the list had a better
> > idea of what is good than just looking up scores.
>
> > This certainly didn't improve my idea of the WS awards. The only thing
> > that seeing an Award of Excellence does for me is assure me they serve
> > wine. But I thought it was worth posting Matthews' response, as
> > Goldstein's presentation left out a few things.
>
> > Thanks for the confirmation on the lobster burgers!
>
> Dale,
> I see your point and agree with you about Robin Goldstein's
> disclosure. I remember Wine Spectator when it was a paper magazine
> folded in half with two staples in the middle. I never much cared for
> the tasting by committee approach. I ran a Grand Award cellar at the
> Watergate Hotel for many years and appreciated the recognition then,
> however naive about the business I might have been at the time. Now
> the Grand Award formula is easy to accomplish but it goes against my
> idea of what a great, well rounded wine list is. Endless numbers of
> verticals and a ton of trophy bottles is not what the average diner is
> looking for. Value and quality are, at whatever price point you
> choose, $40 or $400.
>
> As for Riesling, it is my mission to make at least one convert every
> day!
> Mark

Yes, but I prefer the Albert Mann Grand Crus. Other producers I like
very much are Kientzler, Otter, Schleret, Z-H and Weinbach (of course)
and Rene Barth.

In article >,
responder > wrote:

> Mark Slater wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 5:48 pm, DaleW > wrote:
> >> On Aug 20, 8:15 am, DaleW > wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://osterialintrepido.wordpress.com/
> >> I'm still not a fan of the WS awards, except for maybe the top level
> >> ones they truly don't mean anything. But in fairness, it sounds like
> >> Robin Goldstein's blog tells a rather incomplete story. This is the
> >> response from Thomas Matthews, editor of WS:
> >>
> >> 1. Wine Spectator¹s 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 program¹s 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 doesn¹t 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 L¹Intrepido:
> >> 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 Spectator¹s 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 Italy¹s 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 L¹Intrepido 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."
> >> __________________
> >>
> >> I still don't think much of the awards, but it's clear that if WS is
> >> accurate in its description, Goldstein was less than candid in his
> >> description of the scam.
> >
> > Dale,
> > I read the response earlier today and it just seemed like damage
> > control to me. WS did zero fact checking. Posts on Chowhound are
> > dubious at best. They can spin this any way they want to. It caught
> > them with their pants down, in my opinion. The last time I applied for
> > their "award" was 10 years ago. I have a pretty serious wine list. I
> > paid the money and got the Award of Excellence, the minimum award.
> > 4500 restaurants sending them $250 adds up to a lot of money. You
> > would expect more.
>
> As anyone intimate with the industry always knew...WS is a great
> publication for the people who sell wine, but absolutely meaningless for
> those who buy that wine..
>
> I personally know of many restaurants in South Florida whose wine lists
> are abominable, both in selection and price, but have a wall full of WS
> awards gathered over the years.

Totally agree with that comment. I have been to numerous restaurants
with WS awards of which many had smaller wine collections than I and
much less variety than one would expect to receive awards of excellence.
Just continues my dislike of WS as a publication with any value at all
except to sell ads and awards.

Mark Slater wrote:

> Dale,
> I see your point and agree with you about Robin Goldstein's
> disclosure. I remember Wine Spectator when it was a paper magazine
> folded in half with two staples in the middle. I never much cared for
> the tasting by committee approach. I ran a Grand Award cellar at the
> Watergate Hotel for many years and appreciated the recognition then,
> however naive about the business I might have been at the time. Now
> the Grand Award formula is easy to accomplish but it goes against my
> idea of what a great, well rounded wine list is. Endless numbers of
> verticals and a ton of trophy bottles is not what the average diner is
> looking for. Value and quality are, at whatever price point you
> choose, $40 or $400.

Mark,
You have just very succinctly stated my views on those awards.
Awhile ago, I made the statement elsewhere that I wasn't at all
impressed by those Grand Award wine lists at restaurants I've visited
(Gary Danko, Charlie Trotter's, Galileo, Tru) because they skew so
heavily to trophy bottles and rarely have any relationship to the food
being served. Add to that the fact that those trophy bottles tend to be
young wines in need of bottle age and you have a very small list of
usable choices. To me, a list such as Mark Ellenbogen has assembled at
Slanted Door and Aziza is far closer to the ideal
(http://slanteddoor.com/wine_list.html). Regarding yours: it has some
nice selections from Champagne and Burgundy on it -- and I like the way
you've organized it -- but what I find is a 4 page PDF that doesn't
extend beyond Champagne and Burgundy. Given your comment about pushing
Riesling, I'm a bit perplexed. Is the PDF incomplete?

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

On Aug 21, 11:27*am, Mark Lipton > wrote:
> Mark Slater wrote:
> > Dale,
> > I see your point and agree with you about Robin Goldstein's
> > disclosure. I remember Wine Spectator when it was a paper magazine
> > folded in half with two staples in the middle. I never much cared for
> > the tasting by committee approach. I ran a Grand Award cellar at the
> > Watergate Hotel for many years and appreciated the recognition then,
> > however naive about the business I might have been at the time. Now
> > the Grand Award formula is easy to accomplish but it goes against my
> > idea of what a great, well rounded wine list is. Endless numbers of
> > verticals and a ton of trophy bottles is not what the average diner is
> > looking for. Value and quality are, at whatever price point you
> > choose, $40 or $400.
>
> Mark,
> * *You have just very succinctly stated my views on those awards.
> Awhile ago, I made the statement elsewhere that I wasn't at all
> impressed by those Grand Award wine lists at restaurants I've visited
> (Gary Danko, Charlie Trotter's, Galileo, Tru) because they skew so
> heavily to trophy bottles and rarely have any relationship to the food
> being served. *Add to that the fact that those trophy bottles tend to be
> young wines in need of bottle age and you have a very small list of
> usable choices. *To me, a list such as Mark Ellenbogen has assembled at
> Slanted Door and Aziza is far closer to the ideal
> (http://slanteddoor.com/wine_list.html). *Regarding yours: it has some
> nice selections from Champagne and Burgundy on it -- and I like the way
> you've organized it -- but what I find is a 4 page PDF that doesn't
> extend beyond Champagne and Burgundy. *Given your comment about pushing
> Riesling, I'm a bit perplexed. *Is the PDF incomplete?
>
> Mark Lipton
>
> --
> alt.food.wine FAQ: *http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

Mark,
I am one of the few people who update their list daily, so it makes no
sense to publish the entire list on the internet. I wanted to give a
representation of the strong points in the cellar - Burgundy and
Champagne. I will see about publishing the Riesling page in the near
future because there are close to 50 selections. Thanks for the
comments.
Mark Slater

Mark, what restaurant in DC is the one you are at? If you don't mind my
asking.

My pet peeve BTW is at places in parts of the country they have a wine list
but not mentioning the vintage year for many of the wines. As far as cost
goes...I have noticed a strategy that seems to be the higher priced wines
must have lower margins/markup and the low priced wines have higher. I
think if you have a good wine crowd that is a good strategy. Attracks wine
lovers and foodies.

I am in Charlotte, NC and there are only a few with that strategy here. But
in Chapel Hill/Raileigh far more.

Usually I bring a bottle or two from my personal cellar if entertaining
close friends and order 1-2 at a restaurant...I rarely have been charged a
corkage. Plus I am well known in this area as we eat out 4x a week at a
select few places.


"Mark Slater" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 21, 11:27 am, Mark Lipton > wrote:
> Mark Slater wrote:
> > Dale,
> > I see your point and agree with you about Robin Goldstein's
> > disclosure. I remember Wine Spectator when it was a paper magazine
> > folded in half with two staples in the middle. I never much cared for
> > the tasting by committee approach. I ran a Grand Award cellar at the
> > Watergate Hotel for many years and appreciated the recognition then,
> > however naive about the business I might have been at the time. Now
> > the Grand Award formula is easy to accomplish but it goes against my
> > idea of what a great, well rounded wine list is. Endless numbers of
> > verticals and a ton of trophy bottles is not what the average diner is
> > looking for. Value and quality are, at whatever price point you
> > choose, $40 or $400.
>
> Mark,
> You have just very succinctly stated my views on those awards.
> Awhile ago, I made the statement elsewhere that I wasn't at all
> impressed by those Grand Award wine lists at restaurants I've visited
> (Gary Danko, Charlie Trotter's, Galileo, Tru) because they skew so
> heavily to trophy bottles and rarely have any relationship to the food
> being served. Add to that the fact that those trophy bottles tend to be
> young wines in need of bottle age and you have a very small list of
> usable choices. To me, a list such as Mark Ellenbogen has assembled at
> Slanted Door and Aziza is far closer to the ideal
> (http://slanteddoor.com/wine_list.html). Regarding yours: it has some
> nice selections from Champagne and Burgundy on it -- and I like the way
> you've organized it -- but what I find is a 4 page PDF that doesn't
> extend beyond Champagne and Burgundy. Given your comment about pushing
> Riesling, I'm a bit perplexed. Is the PDF incomplete?
>
> Mark Lipton
>
> --
> alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

Mark,
I am one of the few people who update their list daily, so it makes no
sense to publish the entire list on the internet. I wanted to give a
representation of the strong points in the cellar - Burgundy and
Champagne. I will see about publishing the Riesling page in the near
future because there are close to 50 selections. Thanks for the
comments.
Mark Slater