Is Wine Spectator Arrogant?

I might be over-sensitized to the effect, and maybe what I am sensing isn’t all that different from other contemporary cultures, but when I read the Wine Spectator (and I know admitting that I do diminishes the respectability of my impression) I get a sense of overweening imperiousness.

Little things, I guess, like the cover heading proclaiming the top 100 wines, without a qualifier that it is in their staff’s opinion. When Decanter does a similar evaluation, they call it the 'Decanter Awards', as I remember. And columns like one from Matt Kramer in which the theme was how big a man he was to admit he was wrong about predicting something in a previous column that only God would be able to know, like he expected his readers to put him in that category. I remember thinking what he predicted was just stupid; not that he couldn’t be right, but because he would have no way to know.

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?

And unless my eye skipped over one, or some, only numbers 94 and 95 of the Top 100 list included Bordeaux, a white and a red. As I remember, in previous years they would have one or two Bordeaux somewhere at the end. Is this to show that they sampled Bordeaux but they were mostly all judged to be inferior to all kinds of stuff from everywhere else? Is this an expression of New World jingoism, or a failing in me in that I consider Bordeaux to be pretty good relative to other wines and to have good values, with the exception of top growths? Does Shanken’s physical appearance say it all? Am I being overly sensitive and critical?

About sums up why I dropped it over a decade ago.

[David M. Bueker]

Am I being overly sensitive and critical?

Yes.

You are bringing your personal outlook to bear which is understandable, but it is the "Wine Spectator Top 100" wines, and they define their process in the magazine.

Kramer is one of the better wine writers out there (too bad he only gets 500 words an issue) IMO, and I think you are reading too much into whatever comment you took offense to.

As for Bordeaux, they do extensive reviews on an annual basis, and have often had the wines at the top of the list. Not sure where you got the one or two at the bottom impression. Bear in mind that vintages come into play, and if it was 2007 or 2008 wines then they were not the most stellar years. 2009 might do better for Bordeaux, but since the Spec uses value as part of their criteria, the wines of Bordeaux might be falling more than a little bit short these days.

David said most of what I was going to say. I don't read the WS, so no informed opinion as to what was stated in Kramer's column or Haut Brion article But I just looked at online site, and it's pretty clear that it says Wine Spectator Top 100. Even if in magazine it just says "Top 100", the fact that there's a big "Wine Spectator" at top of cover should clue you in.

So here is intro to the top 100 list:

Every year since 1988, Wine Spectator has compiled a list of the most exciting wines we’ve reviewed over the past 12 months. These 100 wines reflect significant trends, recognize outstanding producers and spotlight successful regions and vintages around the world.

In 2011, our list was selected from more than 16,000 new releases our editors rated in our independent blind tastings. More than 5,400 of these wines earned outstanding or classic ratings (90 points or higher on Wine Spectator's 100-point scale). We narrowed the list down based on four criteria: quality (represented by score); value (reflected by release price); availability (measured by cases made or imported); and what we call the “X-factor”–the excitement generated by a rising-star producer, a benchmark wine or a significant milestone for a wine region. But no equation determines the final selections: These choices reflect our editors’ judgment and passion about the wines we tasted.

In this year’s list, 12 countries are represented, and quality remains high, with an average score of 93 points. The average price per bottle dipped from last year from $48 to $44, compared with a $70 average for 90-point wines reviewed this year. We hope that you enjoy this list of exciting values, emerging stars and time-honored stalwarts and that our Top 100 of 2011 leads you to more deeply explore the world of wine.

Pretty clear it's their personal opinions.

As to Bordeaux, agree with David on 2, plus there is a third:
1) they're looking at in bottle reviews, and 2008 isn't a vintage they were gaga about. I'm guessing 2009 will have more Bdx on list. Certainly they often put Bordeaux high on list when they favor vintage - 85 Lynch , 95 Ducru, and a 2001 Sauternes (not Yquem, maybe Rieussec or Climens) were WOTY, 2003 Leo-Barton was in top 5, etc.
2) Looking at list, I see only 4 wines over $100, the highest being a 98 pt $175 Peter Michael. So if their highest scoring Bordeaux is 95 pts and $200, might not make the grade.
3) lastly, they're a business. Their critic most identified with Bordeaux was Suckling, and he left. So until their new guy (who is it?) develops a following, Bdx is prohably not a priority. Especially if Suckling did most of the 2008 reviews- not sure.

I'm no fan of WS (or top 10/100 lists), but hard to see this as especially arrogant.

Calling it arrogance might be going too far in imputing motive to the writers, but the Spec certainly does deal in certitude and absolutes. Not only do all wines have numerical pedigrees that are immutable and permanent, but so do vintages, restaurants and regions. Judgments are made about the "quality" of wines, whatever that may be (and isn't it the finest irony that they choose to quantify quality?) with no caveats or conditions set. To me, there is a particularly American feel to it, a magazine that lets you know Exactly How Good Things Are, with no nuance needed. If that fits your definition of arrogance, then have at it, Covert.

Mark Lipton
(indulging my inner curmudgeon this morning)

Methinks you're reading a bit too far into it Covert. I will admit that James Laube's columns do feel rather arrogant to me, as if he feels his words are definitive pronouncements on the subjects he discusses (and I agree that I like Matt Kramer much, much better - he's much more down-to-earth). But overall, I don't feel WS comes off as particularly arrogant, and I would argue that it is all understood to be, by definition, their opinion. That some readers take it as Serious Business is another issue.

In fact, I've been quite encouraged, as I noted in the previous Top 100 thread, that they seem to be honoring more reasonably priced wines, and honoring more regions. Greece and New York are in the Top 100 this year, and they recently did an article on efforts to revive quality winemaking in Serbia. If anything, I'd say of late WS exhibits an enthusiam and open-mindedness about wine that is very encouraging.

So I guess in short, I more or less completely disagree (except where James Laube is concerned - in fact I don't even bother to read his column anymore).

[David M. Bueker]

Calling it arrogance might be going too far in imputing motive to the writers, but the Spec certainly does deal in certitude and absolutes. Not only do all wines have numerical pedigrees that are immutable and permanent, but so do vintages, restaurants and regions. Judgments are made about the "quality" of wines, whatever that may be (and isn't it the finest irony that they choose to quantify quality?) with no caveats or conditions set. To me, there is a particularly American feel to it, a magazine that lets you know Exactly How Good Things Are, with no nuance needed. If that fits your definition of arrogance, then have at it

So is the Revue du vin de France particularly American? How about Gault-Millau? The World of Fine Wine? They all do scores. Heck - the G-M does not even print notes, just scores.

Thanks, guys. I am not going to read any more or make any more comments about this angle on the magazine for now. I have lately been suspecting that I am reading arrogance into behavior here and there that could be more in keeping with the country’s zeitgeist if described with other concepts. This was kind of a test.

Obviously some of you might have more comments about the magazine you may want to share with one another without yours truly present.

I was glad that Carl sees it my way. I have a feeling that our consanguinity has to do with our similar surroundings, which might not a bad thing, even if we are in a minority.

[David M. Bueker]

Calling it arrogance might be going too far in imputing motive to the writers, but the Spec certainly does deal in certitude and absolutes. Not only do all wines have numerical pedigrees that are immutable and permanent, but so do vintages, restaurants and regions. Judgments are made about the "quality" of wines, whatever that may be (and isn't it the finest irony that they choose to quantify quality?) with no caveats or conditions set. To me, there is a particularly American feel to it, a magazine that lets you know Exactly How Good Things Are, with no nuance needed. If that fits your definition of arrogance, then have at it

So is the Revue du vin de France particularly American? How about Gault-Millau? The World of Fine Wine? They all do scores. Heck - the G-M does not even print notes, just scores.

David, most every wine publication uses numerical ratings, I know. Yet do you not detect a difference in tone between the Spec and those other publications? When I see the Spec (a rare event these days) I read pronouncements that leave no room for doubt. I don't read Revue du Vin or Gault-Millau, so it is possible that I'd get the same tone in them (what I have read of Bettane in particular does strike me as similar in tone to RMP, but that's not the same thing), but even The Wine Advocate doesn't offer pronouncements with the same degree of certitude, or at least it doesn't seem so to me.

Mark Lipton

Actually can anyone name a professional wine critic/publication who doesn't use scores? Let's see:
100 pt scale: WS, WA, Gilman, Kolm, Tanzer/IWC, Meadows, WE, Halliday, W & S, many more
20 pt : Bettane, Revue du Vin, Jancis, some Decanter reviews, more European
glasses/stars: Gambero Rosso, other Decanter reviews

I don't like the implied accuracy of numbers, but I don't think the concept is actually different from letter grades, stars, glasses, words (if there is a defined hierarchy- if "extraordinary" is better than "fine", it's ranking), buy/don't buy, prongs, stooges, etc. Writer is trying to say I like X better than Y.

I actually think some certitude is required from critics. It's fine for us to say "hey I like this, solid B, but others might not" or even "I'm not sure what I think about this" but people who pay critics EXPECT firm opinions. It's on the reader to have enough sense to say "well, that's Gilman's (or Parker's or Meadows' or Suckling's) opinion, I'll see how it matches with my own." If someone thinks that a critic's opinion is an actual measurement of quality, then they need a course in critical thinking.

The style of the magazine is IM(very limited)E more strident than others - whether this is arrogance or the necessary 'Swagger' to compete against similar publications in their key markets... I guess that's debatable.

Personally I don't think wine magazines suit those who are seriously into the hobby, but have been a factor in encouraging many who now are. Our interests often grow beyond what they're capable of delivering. Few of us here would have any need of a Top 100 whether it was claimed to be the best or not. Once you've seen one or two of them you start to realise how daft they are. They do shift magazines (and wines) though, so they're here to stay.

regards

Ian

[David M. Bueker]

With the disclaimer that I no longer subscribe to WSpec, TWA (Parker), IWC (Tanzer), View from the Cellar (Gilman) or any other of their ilk with the exception of The World of Fine Wine (love the articles... ), I can't for the life of me figure how you could differentiate the level of certitude or arrogance from one to the other. How much more black can it be???

I might be over-sensitized to the effect, and maybe what I am sensing isn’t all that different from other contemporary cultures, but when I read the Wine Spectator (and I know admitting that I do diminishes the respectability of my impression) I get a sense of overweening imperiousness.

Well, Covert.....I've followed the WS from the very start....when it was a tabloid newspaper published down in SanDiego by BobMorrisey. Even used to
write for the WS way back then [hangingheadinshame.gif].
I, too, get your same sense of arrogance/overweening imperiousness. Nothing all that specific....just an overarching tone to their writing. They don't use a
100-pt scale to rate wines. They use the WineSpectator's 100-pt scale (I once posed the question on these-here Boards the difference between to Parker 100-pt scale
and the WS 100-pt scale. No real answer from anybody...as I expected).
The introduction to each issue by Shanken/Matthews especially has this breathless/self-important tone to it. They have reviewed X million wines for this issue and here
are the best. We discovered the greatness of Syrah in Calif. We were the first to cover such&such a region. BlahBlahBlah. Both Molesworth's and Laube's articles have
much that same tone to them. Met Laube at HdR one year & he clearly had this chip on his shoulder. I tried to engage him in conversation and it was soon clear
he didn't want to waste his time.
That said.....I just sorta shrug my shoulders and sluff it off. To tell the truth, I only subscribe because I'm shopping around for a personal jet aircraft!!! [selfsatisfiedsmirk.gif]

Actually, over the last yr or so, some of the newer writers have had well-written/interesting/informative articles that are worth reading. One wonders how long it will take
them to develop the smug/arrogant Shanken/Matthews/Laube tone to their writing. And some of MattKramer's columns are worth reading...though I sense he's running
out of pot-stirring things to say.

Does Shanken’s physical appearance say it all? Am I being overly sensitive and critical?

Probably best not go here, Covert.
Tom

Tom, I know I said I wasn’t going to comment further. I need to paste a permanent disclaimer on the bottom of my posts which says, Never Trust A Prankster. I admit I have a prejudice about WLDG that almost everybody on it thinks like David or Dale; which is why after they commented I said I wouldn't read or comment further. It is probably from the times that I got lambasted by virtually everybody for what Hoke terms my “outrageous” posts. It is gratifying to read your (and Carl’s) agreement with my general impression. And of course impressionistic pictures have nothing to do with right or wrong, accuracy or inaccuracy, just how one individual perceives something. I get tired of often feeling like I am the only one who sees something in a certain way.

Besides the impressionistic issue, the theme of WS couldn’t be more opposite of my life’s theme. They revel in X million different bottles, all quantified, as you point out, while I can focus for days, and sometimes years, on the qualitative appeal and appropriateness of a single bottle for a setting. For example, I must have 100 times relived my 1999 Chateau Pichon Baron drunk leisurely by myself last fall at MASA’s restaurant in San Francisco. Different strokes for different folks.

Re your last line, my comment was just another impressionistic picture. I think you related to the impression without my having to go there in a realistic motif.

With the disclaimer that I no longer subscribe to WSpec, TWA (Parker), IWC (Tanzer), View from the Cellar (Gilman) or any other of their ilk with the exception of The World of Fine Wine (love the articles... ), I can't for the life of me figure how you could differentiate the level of certitude or arrogance from one to the other. How much more black can it be???

Well, David, to pick an easy target, let's look at a book title authored by a Spec contributor:

California's Great Cabernets: The Wine Spectator's Ultimate Guide to Consumers

Those two highlighted words, I think we can agree, are totally gratuitous. Would a book authored by Decanter, e.g., employ the same overblown verbiage do you think? It's not restricted to them, though: Parker has employed "best" and "finest" in his book titles, too, but I would argue that such language pervades the pages of the Spec (IMO) to a greater extent than it does TWA.

Mark Lipton

The wine Spectator has a specific audience that obviously likes their format. Different strokes for different folks. When I'll be around our wine store for Xmas there will be many people coming into the store with the best 100 Spec selections in their hot little hands. You may not agree with the Spec but they sell a lot of wine. The fact that we have wine publications is a real plus to the fine wine business. It's the old cliche practically any publicity is a good thing.

[David M. Bueker]

With the disclaimer that I no longer subscribe to WSpec, TWA (Parker), IWC (Tanzer), View from the Cellar (Gilman) or any other of their ilk with the exception of The World of Fine Wine (love the articles... ), I can't for the life of me figure how you could differentiate the level of certitude or arrogance from one to the other. How much more black can it be???

Well, David, to pick an easy target, let's look at a book title authored by a Spec contributor:

California's Great Cabernets: The Wine Spectator's Ultimate Guide to Consumers

Those two highlighted words, I think we can agree, are totally gratuitous. Would a book authored by Decanter, e.g., employ the same overblown verbiage do you think? It's not restricted to them, though: Parker has employed "best" and "finest" in his book titles, too, but I would argue that such language pervades the pages of the Spec (IMO) to a greater extent than it does TWA.

Mark Lipton

I would argue that you are singling out the Spec for scorn, when all they are doing is playing into the norm for publications of virtually all types. It's not arrogance, but appealing to a public that only pays attention to superlatives. How many magazines would sell with the headline of "California's Really Good Cabernets"?

And Parker has always done the same thing. He just used cooler language, such as references to Neil Young songs. That's potentially worse, as it's exclusionary.

As for Decanter, well they are intellectually dishonest with their "Decanter World Wine Awards" that are full of no-name wines. I'll take hyperbole over dishonesty any day.

Well, David, to pick an easy target, let's look at a book title authored by a Spec contributor:

California's Great Cabernets: The Wine Spectator's Ultimate Guide to Consumers

Those two highlighted words, I think we can agree, are totally gratuitous. Would a book authored by Decanter, e.g., employ the same overblown verbiage do you think? It's not restricted to them, though:

Well, the cover article in Decanter seems to be entitled "Best of France: The Top 200 Buys of the Year."
Their "About us" reads Decanter magazine is - quite simply - the world’s best wine magazine. Read in 98 countries, Decanter is required reading for everyone with an interest in wine - from amateur enthusiast to serious collector.
Spurrier's book claims to be the complete guide to wine tasting.

I'm about to have dinner with Gilman. Great writing, I believe you are a subscriber, but read the article titles- really think that;'s more subtle?

[David M. Bueker]

I was going to essentially disregard Gilman's most egregious foray into critical arrogance, but what the heck: Roadkill (his sometimes reviews of highly respected wines that he despises).

Well, David, to pick an easy target, let's look at a book title authored by a Spec contributor:

California's Great Cabernets: The Wine Spectator's Ultimate Guide to Consumers

Those two highlighted words, I think we can agree, are totally gratuitous. Would a book authored by Decanter, e.g., employ the same overblown verbiage do you think? It's not restricted to them, though: Parker has employed "best" and "finest" in his book titles, too, but I would argue that such language pervades the pages of the Spec (IMO) to a greater extent than it does TWA.

Mark Lipton

Actually Mark (et al.), to me this just seems like marketing/promotion - of course they're going to use words like that - they want people to pay attention to it. In fact, I see this, albeit vaguely, in a vain familiar to you and I - grant/science proposals: sometimes you have to use a bit of bravado, to get the reviewers excited about it - after all, if you're not excited and confident about you science, why should they be? Obviously this is only a loose analogy, but they've got to sell it. So I wouldn't really blame them for using such language.

I happen to like Spectator - I just gloss over the parts that don't interest me, or where it is obvious that they are pontificating. It's just like scores themselves - can be abused, but useful, albeit with some discrimination.

I'll pretty much agree with David's assessment of the media that he mentioned.

As far as WS writers go, I enjoy reading Matt Kramer's columns, but can pass on Laube.

Hi Covert,

I stopped subscribing to WS a couple of years ago because of its 'only the best' attitude about most of the wines it reviews and its apparent focus on wine as an investment (I like to drink it, not trade it). Like many other here, the only writer I can say that I really miss is Matt Kramer. I truly enjoyed his column and would have liked to seen more of this writing in the WS. Although I do think his articles at 500 words were succinct and hard hitting partly because of their length.

[David M. Bueker]

Focus on wine as an investment? Tried reading The World of Fine Wine? Now there's a publication that focuses on wine as an investment.