The problem is you did not state it that way in your review. You stated the wines were deeply flawed. There is a vast difference between not living up to an earlier potential, and being deeply flawed. I have tasted these same wines on several ocasions – whatever flaws you found were either limited to a few bottles, phantoms of your imagination, or derived from some external motivation. There have been several other reviews calling into question your notes on these wines – it’s time for you to revisit this issue, re-taste these wines and either 1. stand by your original opinion (which would put you in a class by yourself), or revise your notes to accurately reflect the wines.

With so many calling into question your notes on these wines, you owe it to yourself, your readers, and Lignier to make sure you get it right – one way or the other.

He just needs retailers and restaurants to continue to play “front man.”

I do not believe the masses are “embracing” Cellartracker. A very small populous certainly is, no doubt.

When CT shelftalkers start becoming more prevolent, then it will attract the masses. Till then, just walk into your local liquor stores, and talk to me about shelftalkers.

I was at a lunch today, where the producer handed out a catalog, littered with scores from International Wine Cellar and Robert Parker.

Only issue is that the winery is in Chile. Robert Parker never reviewed their wines. The winemaker kinda shrugged when I said that they should write in the Wine Advocate instead.

Yes, its clear: Antonio violates the ethical standards of TWA. No discussion about it.

But….does anyone care? They are losing subscribers like crazy, and sites like CT are growing exponentially.

I am a potty mouthed NYer.

where did you learn such an awful word as “heck…?”

Thanks for joining the discussion.

As I said in my original post, Parker laid down impressive standards for ethics in wine writing decades ago including “it is imperative to keep one’s distance from the trade,” adding “it can be no other way.” Are those standards still on the masthead of the publication? Yes.

Parker never sold tickets to verticals of Rayas or Pavie with the winemakers and/or vintners.

If you feel that times have changed and the WA standards are no longer valid or workable, then adjusting the ethics statement as necessary seems the best way to go. Then there would be not only greater transparency but also no discrepancy betweens policy and practice.

That’s the long and the short of it.

Only time will show if he follows what’s correct for the consumers, been their advocate, or follows what some of the previous reviewers of the WA did.

As someone said above he has to put food on the table and since he is on the spot it’s easy to judge him, have we seen the ones who judge us and what have we done about it….. most time ignore them at least he answered with facts.

Antonio good luck!!!!

It is great that you have elected to not taste Champagnes without disgorgement dates, as I am sure, Champagne drinkers, all over the world, are pleased. But, you were pretty clear in all of your previous posts that you seemed to “pioneer” this movement. Now, to your point, Jancis and Josh were ahead of you. Maybe not to the extremes you have taken, but certainly there.

Nevertheless, I fear much of my points here and as I have said elsewhere, get overlooked.

The bottom line is that you are familiar with the “ethical standards” of the Wine Advocate, as you are a wine critic for them.

You are profiting off of events with producers, a complete violation of the “code” as far as I can tell.

In the end, everyone knows Marvin Shanken profits off the WS Wine Experience…it is as clear as day. Everyone knows he profits off the advertising in the magazine…it is clear as day.

But the last time I checked, Marvin has never reviewed any of those wines for the publication. And his critics taste blind. Heck, they seem to sign and follow a very strict ethical guideline, that is there for the world to see on their website. It is all black and white. People can make their own judgements of whether what he does is right or wrong, but they can see the full picture, before forming the opinion.

The WA, OTOH, is the exact opposite, posting ethical standards that are never upheld. Posting strict tasting guidelines that are never followed.

So, when people post, thanks for the transparency, Antonio, I have to chuckle. It is great that you come here and post the “truth” but this is a blog not read by many wine consumers, and certainly not read by your subscriber base. No, your subscriber base reads page 1 of the Wine Advocate, where it talks, ad nauseum, about the ethics of the critics and writers there. They read erobertparker.com, where the code of ethics might as well be used for cyber space toilet paper. So, while you correct things here, for this limited audience, you seem to refuse to correct things where it counts…with your customers!

That is where I take issue with the WA.

How many subscribers know how much money you are making on the Solaia dinnre? How much know you are making anything at all? La Festa? Masseto dinner? All of the other events you seem to be running these days.

I think it is great that you are out there., I think it is great you are doing these events for consumers. But, who are we kidding? You are also doing these events to feed your family. This is not some charitable venture. Nor is the Wine Advocate…it is all for profit…that is why no samples are purchased…no wines are tasted blind…and Solaia costs $1200 for a dinner that is probably more like $750 per person, assuming my math is right.

I think your paid subscribers deserve the truth. Wine Consumers deserve the truth. Then, when all of the cards are on the table, people can make an educated decision. Till then, it is an ignorant public singing the praises of the Wine Advocate.

And till page 1 is rewritten, and till the ethical page is rewritten, t reflect the truth, I will continue to ask for that change, as I have for 4 years, now…after my first trip to Argentina (paid for out of my own pocket, FYI) where I learned that the wineries down there paid for Jay Miller to visit and wined and dined him, on a few occasions.

Before that time, I will confess to being an ignorant subscriber, assuming that Robert Parker’s written word was the truth. So, you owe it to people like me, and all wine consumers out there, to actually inform us what is really going on. Transparency is the key. And while you are being transparent here, this is a limited audience.

But your subscriber base is not. You and Bob are doing all of these videos, perhaps a video about how all of you conduct your tastings. How samples are retrieved. How wine is tasted and reviewed How Napa Valley and Sonoma Valley Vintners organize most of your tastings in California. How you do your trips to Italy, Champagne and Burgundy. How Neal Martin is able to travel around the world to taste all of these great wines he writes about. What David Schildknecht does in his travels.

An arm’s length from the trade was not my decision, it was Bob Parker’s.

The truth is in order.

Re: Champagne. You are right. That is an oversight on my part. I should have been more specific in explaining my policy, because it is actually much more stringent than I state above. The strictest in the business. I am big fan of Josh (whom I also consider a friend) and the entire team at IWC. Other critics, including Josh and Jancis, have taken a stance on disgorgement dates and general disclosure on Champagne bottles in the past. I am the only critic who has taken a truly firm view, in my opinion of course, by stating that I will not review NV wines that don’t have a disgorgement date or a code that is simple to understand on the bottle.

For example:

Wine Advocate Dec 2010

“Last year I wrote that I would no longer review NV wines without lot numbers and/or disgorgement dates. The reason is simple. Late in 2009, at the end of what had been a horrible market for high-end wine, and Champagne in particular, something interesting happened. I started to see the trade circulating Wine Advocate reviews before the December issue had been published. How could that be? It turned out that the trade was using reviews from the previous year’s Champagne issue to sell the then-current crop of NV releases. But there was more to it than that. Because of the slowdown in sales, some – but not all – of the NV wines in the market were actually the same exact wines and disgorgements I had tasted the year before! Of course, there was no way to be sure which wines were being offered because so many NV wines carry no identification whatsoever for the consumer. I made the difficult but necessary decision to only review NV wines with disgorgement dates and/or lot numbers so readers can easily match my review to the wines that are actually in the market.”

Wine Advocate October 2011

“Beginning next year, in 2012, The Wine Advocate will no longer review NV Champagnes that do not have disgorgement dates on their back labels. Obscure codes and/or lot numbers that hold no value to the consumer will no longer be sufficient. If I can’t figure out what I am tasting, I can hardly expect readers to do so. Champagne producers must become just a little more consumer-friendly. How is it possible that a carton of milk is more descriptive than a $100 bottle of Champagne? Unfortunately, today that is too often the reality.”

That goes for big houses and small alike. Two years ago I stopped reviewing Krug’s NV Champagnes. All of my peers continued to review the wines. Earlier this year, Krug announced that they were adding ID codes to their bottles. Why? Largely because I have been going there every year for the last five years sharing with them my opinion on why listing disgorgement dates (and other information) is critically important. Another major house will follow shortly with something similar, directly in response to my criticisms of them. Alfred Gratien added disgorgement dates this year and Camille Saves will follow in 2013. I am sorry if that comes across as chest thumping to you, but I like to support everything I say with facts.

Look at any wine publication’s database (including ours) and their reviews of NV Champagnes from producers such as Delamotte, Saves and Paul Bara. You will see multiple listings for what looks like the same wine, year after year. Let me be clear – I am not picking on those producers – but rather pointing out the dilemma consumers, the trade and critics find themselves in dealing with Champagne. Trying to wade through all the information on labels and bottles, including long codes that only the houses understand – usually hidden as well as possible – is a daunting task for anyone.

Festa del Barolo. The fact is producers received free seats to the formal seated tasting and gala dinner (both of which obviously have value) in exchange for one case of wine and one magnum, not ‘cases’ of wine. Regardless, I know this is an issue for some people, so we are buying all of the wine for next year’s Festa. It’s part of the learning process once you have an idea of how things work and what the demand might be for an event like this. The first year, all I know is we took a huge risk and it could have equally been a disaster or a success, with the risks much more heavily skewed towards the downside, given that a poorly run event would have resulted in 1) financial loss, 2) damage to my reputation, 3) damage to the WA and 4) an inability to host future similar events. Like most things in life, when everything goes well, people tend to just assume it was easy and expected. It sure didn’t feel that way at the time.

La Festa del Barolo remains an event focused on education. For example, next year we will host a closed-door tasting seminar for all the sommeliers who are working the event. I am committed to making La Festa work while addressing issues that may arise concerning ethics.

It is clear you have bigger issues with the WA. Nothing I can do or say will change that. I do not own the Wine Advocate nor do I set its policies.