Is Wine Spectator Arrogant?

I once found the Wine Speculator to be interesting and useful.

I subscribed back in the newsprint days Tom alluded to, and found the articles on wineries I'd visit when I went on my annual sports car racing junket to Monterey to be on point.

After awhile they started to do reviews penned not by a single person, but by a panel that changed and the results became almost completely undependable. Then they added travel and non-wine articles. I haven't read one nor subscribed for more than a decade as I found their increasing lifestyles bent to make them largely irrelevant to my interests. I did toss out some of the old newprint issues awhile ago, and was amazed to see the low scores they used to give when they were still a real critical organ instead of a PR rag.

As for arrogant, I find myself not caring whether they are or are not - like I said, irrelevant to me.

The Wine Spectator helps sell wine to people who have conventional wine tastes and need a number to validate their decision to purchase. It is very useful in this regard. All the rest of it is window dressing. I really couldn't care less if they regard themselves as God's Gift To The Wine World.

I really couldn't care less if they regard themselves as God's Gift To The Wine World.

Dave, I know this is going to sound confrontational, and I am not sure if I could couch my statement in a way that didn’t; but I am more respectfully curious than looking for an argument. This note also applies to Bill Spohn’s reply. I have surmised, without evidence, I will admit, that people who might look arrogant to some people wouldn’t themselves notice or care about arrogance in others. Just like I don’t at all mind people who brag, possibly because I do it myself so much, while a lot of people don’t like it. And I don’t smell garlic on somebody if I am eating it.

Why would you think it was important to respond to my subject of my interest by telling me you don’t care about it? That sounds a touch arrogant to me. It reminds me of some guy from South America on this forum who once responded to a tasting note of mine to say that he didn’t like my choice of descriptor, rather than argue that what I was perceiving was inaccurate, or something more useful like that. He said something about being a song writer or something in his avatar, as I remember, so I retorted that I don’t like songs; which I don’t; but I would never in a hundred years respond that way to something he posted about songs. That would be arrogant, in my opinion. Like who the hell would care whether I liked songs or not, or stamp collecting, or Catholic translations, etc. Other people do.

I really couldn't care less if they regard themselves as God's Gift To The Wine World.

Dave, I know this is going to sound confrontational, and I am not sure if I could couch my statement in a way that didn’t; but I am more respectfully curious than looking for an argument. This note also applies to Bill Spohn’s reply. I have surmised, without evidence, I will admit, that people who might look arrogant to some people wouldn’t themselves notice or care about arrogance in others. Just like I don’t at all mind people who brag, possibly because I do it myself so much, while a lot of people don’t like it. And I don’t smell garlic on somebody if I am eating it.

Why would you think it was important to respond to my subject of my interest by telling me you don’t care about it? That sounds a touch arrogant to me. It reminds me of some guy from South America on this forum who once responded to a tasting note of mine to say that he didn’t like my choice of descriptor, rather than argue that what I was perceiving was inaccurate, or something more useful like that. He said something about being a song writer or something in his avatar, as I remember, so I retorted that I don’t like songs; which I don’t; but I would never in a hundred years respond that way to something he posted about songs. That would be arrogant, in my opinion. Like who the hell would care whether I liked songs or not, or stamp collecting, or Catholic translations, etc. Other people do.

OK. Let me see if I can clarify: It has been a long time since I actually read the Spec, and part of the reason I stopped was that I too sensed the same "overweening imperiousness" that you do. So I think we're in agreement on that part. Where we are not in agreement, it appears to me, is in the "caring about it" department. Obviously, it bothers you quite a bit. When I failed to renew my subscription--again, having reached essentially the same conclusion you did about its editorial approach--I stopped caring about what they wrote. In that sense, then, you are correct: I don't care. I'm just pointing out that even though I agree with you that the publication is unpleasant to read, the Spec's point system is still useful to me in a commercial setting.

And, for what it's worth, I have no quarrel with anyone who finds the Spectator offensive. Let's just say I no longer have the capacity for outrage I once had. I regret this.

OK. Let me see if I can clarify: It has been a long time since I actually read the Spec, and part of the reason I stopped was that I too sensed the same "overweening imperiousness" that you do. So I think we're in agreement on that part. Where we are not in agreement, it appears to me, is in the "caring about it" department. Obviously, it bothers you quite a bit. When I failed to renew my subscription--again, having reached essentially the same conclusion you did about its editorial approach--I stopped caring about what they wrote. In that sense, then, you are correct: I don't care. I'm just pointing out that even though I agree with you that the publication is unpleasant to read, the Spec's point system is still useful to me in a commercial setting.

And, for what it's worth, I have no quarrel with anyone who finds the Spectator offensive. Let's just say I no longer have the capacity for outrage I once had. I regret this.

Thanks, Dave. It doesn't bother me because I have that expectation for WS. I just think it is curious that a staff can sound so arrogant - acknowledging that many people apparently read the magazine and perceive no arrogance. I am fascinated with all kinds of stuff like this. I get a kick out of it, rather than be bothered by it. I was just reacting to getting responses to my academic, if you will, questions with an "I don't care" kind of response, rather than addressing the question or comment with an opinion of the subject. Your statement was of the mildest example regarding that peeve of mine. It just pushed a button sensitized by more strident remarks of that nature. I apologize for being testy.

Best,

Covert

[David M. Bueker]

Honestly - this whole thread is so much more arrogant than the Spec has ever been...

I've observed over the years that the Speculator helps sell a great deal of "inexpensive" wine in our store. Wines over $40.00 Parker has a much greater influence when it come to moving them. Our store is in an upper middle class neighborhood Manhattan Beach CA. What say you to that observation?
Covert you are in a classification that previously I didn't know existed. A wine lover who drinks Bordeaux only (practically). Not a criticism but an observation.

Well, I can see how someone who's not into wine might find the spectator overblown, or self important, or pretentious, or maybe even at times elitist, but I must admit I am surprised to find so many wine lovers who are offended by it's arrogance. As others have pointed out, it's a money making proposition which offers it's opinion. It pays for the Spectator to package it's opinions as dramatically as possible, just like the weather channel does when it promotes the next great impending blizzard 12 times a year, and we all know only one of them ever comes to pass. I doubt whether deep down the Spectator takes itself as seriously as some of it's critics.

As for me I feel no shame in enjoying the Spectator for what it is. Many of the articles are interesting because of the places & people they highlight. I enjoy learning about a region which I know little about, or perhaps the path a renowned wine maker took, or is taking, to reach his or her vinous dream. I don't take their wine reviews as being handed down from on high, but at the same time I am not offended by those who might, hey what the hell, whatever floats your boat! Besides, doing that would seem to me to be a bit snooty, which might well be as bad as being a bit arrogant.

Well, I can see how someone who's not into wine might find the spectator overblown, or self important, or pretentious, or maybe even at times elitist, but I must admit I am surprised to find so many wine lovers who are offended by it's arrogance. As others have pointed out, it's a money making proposition which offers it's opinion. It pays for the Spectator to package it's opinions as dramatically as possible, just like the weather channel does when it promotes the next great impending blizzard 12 times a year, and we all know only one of them ever comes to pass. I doubt whether deep down the Spectator takes itself as seriously as some of it's critics.

As for me I feel no shame in enjoying the Spectator for what it is. Many of the articles are interesting because of the places & people they highlight. I enjoy learning about a region which I know little about, or perhaps the path a renowned wine maker took, or is taking, to reach his or her vinous dream. I don't take their wine reviews as being handed down from on high, but at the same time I am not offended by those who might, hey what the hell, whatever floats your boat! Besides, doing that would seem to me to be a bit snooty, which might well be as bad as being a bit arrogant.

Tom, I can't speak for other people, but I am not offended by the Wine Spectator.

I've observed over the years that the Speculator helps sell a great deal of "inexpensive" wine in our store. Wines over $40.00 Parker has a much great influence when it come to moving them. Our store is in an upper middle class neighborhood Manhattan Beach CA. What say you to that observation?

Covert you are in a classification that previously I didn't know existed. A wine lover who drinks Bordeaux only (practically). Not a criticism but an observation.

Lou, I’ll bet you have read about the results of psychology studies which show that people who are most sure of themselves, most assertive, most enthusiastic about their rectitude and most ready to lead are often the least capable and thereby least accurate in their opinions and assessments. Those people are often in charge and they frequently charge down the wrong path for everybody who follows, whether in spending trillions of dollars to battle fictitious ghosts in far away deserts or serving Cool Aid laced with cyanide.

Most people are followers and by their genetic predisposition fall into lockstep behind these schmucks. This doesn’t offend me, it angers me. So by association, I guess, even blowhards who run a pompous magazine with righteousness authority in a subjective habitat push my buttons.

I have read that some Englishmen (and maybe women, but I doubt many women) drink only claret. I have never met any such people.

I just was at a friend's (fairly new to wine, buys WS) home, the Top 100 issue was out, and I remembered this thread. So I borrowed for this afternoon. The Top 100 article intro includes the parts I found on online site ("reflects our editors judgement and passion" etc)

As to the Haut Brion quote

Another very small thing in the latest edition, but I could feel my stomach knot a little. De Luxembourg from Haut-Brion made some comment about the great Bordeaux estates. Staff reporter Alison Napjus told us that it was the best expression of the sentiment. How the hell would she know what everybody else had to say about it; and even if she did, that De Luxembourg’s comment was the best?

this is what is actually written (in an article about a panel discussion featuring the owners of the first 5 growths, where it is stated that each panelist spoke about their estate's tradition, direction, respect for the staff, etc):
Although these estates have a coveted place at the top of the wine-world foodchain, it's clear that they don't plan to rest on their laurels. They focus on the details and strive for continued success each year. DeLuxembourg expressed this sentiment best, saying "We have to be worthy every year of the potential, to make sure we live up to what we have inherited.
So they each spoke, and Napjus thought that was the best summation.

The Kramer column referenced must have been in a different edition.

I think WS definitely appeals more to the newbie than the other referenced publications- Decanter et al. Most of the newsletter type publications (Burghound, VFTC, WA.etc) are targeted more towards people with more experience and more serious interest with wine. I'm not surprised that possibly WS might take a more authoritative tone than the others, as more of their readership is probably those who want a list of the supposed "best" to buy to impress others. I don't know as many people who have been wine enthusiasts for more than a few years who subscribe, except people ITB (cause it does move wine, especially in the $15-40 range) and those that just subscribe to a lot of things. I did have a subscription 15 years ago, and then again for one year about 5 years ago (gift from Zachys) and about 3 years ago (cost me 900 miles on an airline I don't fly and had 2000 miles on).