Comments on: Opinion: The best that Enotria has to offer? Relfections on the Wine Spectator Top 100

By: Mark Villalobos

Mark Villalobos — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:49:58 +0000

At this point, what is the use of even caring about which wines Spectator picks as their favorites? People in the wine industry all know that the only people who care about Spectator scores are those with little to no critical wine experience or those just trying to make some money.

Though it is easy to write off high point wines as uninteresting, lacking in qualities that actually make them great wines, they do serve a couple very important functions:

1)Highly scored wines are essentially the perfect beginner wines because they are easy to drink, easy to understand and provide simple enjoyment that may eventually lead to further exploration of wine.

2) Most high point wines are very modern in style and cater to a beginner palate, meaning that the demand for the real wines will remain in the hands of the people who actually enjoy them. Just imagine if Spectator started tossing ridiculous scores at great authentic Italian wines: it would be a nightmare! You would have all of our favorite authentic wines ending up in the hands of someone who probably would not appreciate them as you or I.

3) High points help sell lots of wine which, in general, helps the economy, and keeps people like me employed.
Mark Villalobos
Chicagofoodandwinesocial.com

By: Why Italians are offended by our ratings and rankings « Do Bianchi

Why Italians are offended by our ratings and rankings « Do Bianchi — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:41:16 +0000

[...] the spirit of healthy debate, I encourage you to take a look at the comments at VinoWire to get a sense of the offense perceived by some of our readers in Italy. Possibly related posts: [...]

By: Cristiano Castagno

Cristiano Castagno — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:17:58 +0000

Dear Thomas Matthews,
I must absolutely thank you on behalf of myself and other passionate winelovers worldwide for preserving the world’s top wine from the grasp of the 2.6million readers and supposedly consumers you claim to have by setting up those mischievously deceiptful decoys in your wonderful magazine.Thank you again and keep up the good work and wish you maximum excitement for next year’s top hundred!

By: Thomas Matthews

Thomas Matthews — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:18:16 +0000

I would like to add three comments to Franco Ziliani’s post about Wine Spectator’s Top 100 of 2008.
1. The wines selected are not the “best” of the year, as measured strictly by score; they are chosen because of their combination of quality, value, availability and excitement. For this reason, many excellent wines (including some of Ziliani’s favorites) are excluded.
2. All wines reviewed by Wine Spectator are evaluated in blind tastings (unless explicitly noted otherwise). Neither James Suckling nor any other editor can favor “friends” or punish “enemies.” Ziliani may disagree with our judgments, but he has no grounds to criticize our ethics.
3. Wine Spectator has been publishing for 32 years; according to independent research, we have 2.6 million readers. Are all these people stupid? Or do they recognize that our editors are passionate about wine, fair and experienced, and aim to educate wine consumers about wines, wine producers and the life of wine? Wine Spectator is working to broaden the world of wine. We welcome honest debate, and urge wine drinkers to sample widely, consider all sources of information, and judge for yourselves.
Thomas Matthews
Executive editor
Wine Spectator

By: I soliti ignoti and blogs I’ve been reading lately « Do Bianchi

I soliti ignoti and blogs I’ve been reading lately « Do Bianchi — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:06:21 +0000

[...] of VinoWire, Franco Ziliani, has posted recently on the Wine Spectator’s Top 100 List (my translation is posted at VinoWire) and James Suckling’s top Piedmont picks (in Italian). Franco points [...]

By: Tobias

Tobias — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:44:24 +0000

Is there a broader context to Ziliani’s nickname of “Giacomino” for Suckling? I don’t speak Italian so I am just guessing it can be interpreted as “Little James”, but is there more to it?

By: Adua Bianchi

Adua Bianchi — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:31:14 +0000

Tom,

I’m so stunned and rather embarassed that the people at Wine Spectator allow Suckling to manipulate the market like that, I say this becuase I am an american working in the wine business in Italy. The Italians are laughing and thinking that he drank too much Koolaid in his youth.

I used to greet hundreds of american tourists every week and most of them read W.S. but had no clue really about Italian wines. And those really passionate about wine didn’t want to hear the name mentioned.

There are so many fantastic wines that don’t get mentioned or get trashed because of something personal that went on between Suckling and the producer like they didn’t send him a Ferrari for the weekend…. or put him up in a Villa or promise him cases of their wine? Does he think we don’t hear about all of this? Where are is morals in Journalism?

As I’ve written in the Blog of Franco’s why so much power to this one man? It’s not democratic, is it?

By: Federico Zani

Federico Zani — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:26:05 +0000

Funny the definition by Walter on your Italian blog: James Suckling is a broker not a wine journalist ….

By: Tom Hyland (journalist)

Tom Hyland (journalist) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:28:38 +0000

Zilliani strikes again! Anyone who trusts The Wine Spectator for insight into Italian wines gets what they deserve, as Franco points out.

One wonders how Suckling didn’t include an Amarone from the wonderful 2004 vintage. Amarone in general is the type of robust, fruit-forward, dynamic red he so truly loves. Ah, but wait – the wines from 2004 are not soft and round for drinking today, so they don’t deserve the same merit as Super (ripe) Tuscans.