Re: Score One For Buyers Who Notice

The point of the story is 'caveat emptor'. It was not jj's intent to tout WS or his/her own editorial prowess, but to share an article that raises a disconcerting truth; many of these shelf talkers are inaccurate - which is fraud, regardless of how minor the error may seem to you.

A similar thread ran following this Washington Post article over on the ebob forum. Numerous tales of misrepresentations surfaced; wines labeled with ratings that were given to different vintages seemed to be the most common theme, but all suggesting that this is not an isolated instance. If ratings cause consumers to buy, then good faith in representing those ratings is incumbent on those who are selling the wine - or else they are committing fraud.

From all of this are we to infer that > > a) you would have been astute enough to have recognized > the misattribution while you were in the store and corrected > the shelf talker on the spot with your Sharpie, and > > b) that since the "90" score was actually an "86" the wine > is worthless, of no interest and in no way worth $25, regardless > of the possibility of flawed judgement on the part of the > "revered" Wine Spectator and the possibility that it just might > have tasted good? Please elaborate on the moral of your tale. > > pavane

I see what you are saying. As with many who have been in the wine trade I rankle easily at such mindsets as: "...Wine Spectator, one of the country's most revered wine magazines," and the assumption that a given taste description might be good when applied to an 90 point wine (whatever that means) but not so good when applied to an 86 point wine (whatever that means.)

You are aware that Wine Spectator sends out early notice of their wine ratings, also sends (or sent) out its own shelf talkers, and that the distributor may have had the talker printed professionally and that there are always slips in the printing process. To assume fraud here instead of mere error at many points in the sign-making cycle is pretty drastic. Almost as drastic as assuming that wine with an appealing taste descriptor and a 90 rating will be worthwhile whereas the same wine, descriptor and an 86 rating is unacceptable. We live in a dreadfully mechanized world. Why on earth must we insist on a meaningless number to quantify otherwise meaningful words?

pavane