The readers of the magazine do not regularly taste thousands of Italian wines, as does Franco Ziliani or other serious Italian wine journalists. Thus they look to the magazine for guidance. But how can they take it seriously when the highest rated Italian wines are almost always modern in style, i.e. a “California Brunello” or “California Barolo” as the local winemakers put it? Make a traditional wine aged in large Slavonian oak and Suckling automatically rates it lower.

It’s one thing for an individual to have a preference for riper, more modern style wines, but this clearly displays Suckling’s lack of respect for tradition. There are well made wines in both styles. Wouldn’t it be nice if he treated every Italian wine with the respect it deserves?

Then there is his ranking of the 2004 vintage for Barolo of 88-93 points. Every other wine writer who has covered this has raved about this vintage, which is stunning and one of the finest of the last 20 years. But wait, Suckling already rewarded the clearly inferior 2000 vintage with 100 points, so he can’t rave about the 2004s. Thus he misprepresents the 2004 vintage. And Matthews ask if the READERS are wrong?

Do you still wonder why Franco Ziliani and other journalists question your coverage of Italian wines?