Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
User avatar
Steve Manzi
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 12779
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:55pm
Location: North/Central NJ

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #491  Postby Steve Manzi » July 21st 2009, 8:25am

Daniel Posner wrote:There is one thread on this subject...one thread, while dozens upon dozens more are seeing great interaction.

I find it ironic that people may be scared to post here based upon one thread. Peter, check out the other threads (even some I started-Fake Wines, 2005 CDP Blind TNs, etc etc etc). This board has one thread about Sierra Carche. Parker's board has one thread about Sierra Carche.

I realize that this board got popular due to the censorship in May, but for the past month or so, this board was free of Miller bashing until he tasted Sierra Carche. Before that, it was free of Miller bashing until he posted his findings in Viu Manent. The Parker board was free of Miller bashing until Parker hired him.

I see a trend!


Exactly Dan.

And furthermore, this board should be commended for the advances enjoyed by the members interacting on the Parker board. Without our voices and joining in to stand up for our beliefs, there would still be tons of censorship, bannings etc on that board.

Changes take time, effort, and yes, some strong opinions at times, or at least in the beginning stages.
______________________________________________________________

Advertisement

User avatar
Steve Manzi
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 12779
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:55pm
Location: North/Central NJ

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #492  Postby Steve Manzi » July 21st 2009, 8:28am

And now, I would like to say that this has gone off on a tangent that takes away from that the original post was about, and I would ask that this be taken to a new thread.

Parker just posted on the other thread......from what I was just e-mailed. And if what I was sent was correct, I will follow with a rebuttle.
______________________________________________________________
User avatar
Max Marinucci
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 643
Joined: January 28th 2009, 10:38am
Location: Pound Ridge, NY

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #493  Postby Max Marinucci » July 21st 2009, 8:32am

Nice post there by Parker, who still does not explain why it took JM 10 months to re-taste a wine of very dubious quality that in the process was being sold as a great 96 pointer. Also, I do not understand...is the 16,000-20,000 bottles just the supposed "first cuvee" or the total of the three bottling? If the total production was about 1500 cases and more was bottled subsequently, it sounds like fraud to me.
Max

Proudly ITB -

User avatar
Bill Tex Landreth
SubscriberSubscriber
Enabler
 
Posts: 19993
Joined: January 27th 2009, 12:45pm
Location: DFW

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #494  Postby Bill Tex Landreth » July 21st 2009, 8:36am

Steve Manzi wrote:And now, I would like to say that this has gone off on a tangent that takes away from that the original post was about, and I would ask that this be taken to a new thread.

Parker just posted on the other thread......from what I was just e-mailed. And if what I was sent was correct, I will follow with a rebuttle.



Parker extoles the "positive power of the Internet"...does it make up for all the negative that has been done in regard to this single matter? Let's hope so.
Only the English are learned or gentlemanly. Us redneck best go screw our sisters. Overestimation will be me excuse for all future criminal activities.
User avatar
John Morris
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 7098
Joined: June 21st 2009, 2:09pm
Location: New York City

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #495  Postby John Morris » July 21st 2009, 8:38am

Max -- Parker said there were two bottlings after the one that Miller tasted:

the first bottling...believed by Jay to be the only bottling since this was a very limited cuvee...16,000 or 20,000 bottles, was of very high quality...that seems to be the consensus from those who tasted it and bought it.... subsequent releases...now we know there were two further bottlings admitted to.....presumably offered something completely different than what was in the first bottling.

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... tcount=197
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." -- variously attributed and constantly corroborated
User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #496  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 8:39am

More back pedaling. He has to wait for the importer investigation, because he has no answers himself. I cannot wait to see what Well Oiled comes up with. Let's keep in mind that there business is at stake here, because The Wine Advocate is the only publication to review their wines.

As for two bottlings, as John Morris has pointed out, has that been verified anywhere. Parker just posted it, but that is news to me.

Still, I have yet to see anyone come forward and say that they had a good btl, beyond the CT reviews.
ITB

ht
User avatar
Bob Kaminski
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: January 27th 2009, 4:19pm
Location: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #497  Postby Bob Kaminski » July 21st 2009, 8:40am

Steve Manzi wrote:And now, I would like to say that this has gone off on a tangent that takes away from that the original post was about, and I would ask that this be taken to a new thread.

Parker just posted on the other thread......from what I was just e-mailed. And if what I was sent was correct, I will follow with a rebuttle.


WTF is a "rebuttle" neener I could come up with some good definitions though. [pillow-fight.gif]
User avatar
Max Marinucci
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 643
Joined: January 28th 2009, 10:38am
Location: Pound Ridge, NY

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #498  Postby Max Marinucci » July 21st 2009, 8:41am

John Morris wrote:Max -- Parker said there were two bottlings after the one that Miller tasted:

the first bottling...believed by Jay to be the only bottling since this was a very limited cuvee...16,000 or 20,000 bottles, was of very high quality...that seems to be the consensus from those who tasted it and bought it.... subsequent releases...now we know there were two further bottlings admitted to.....presumably offered something completely different than what was in the first bottling.

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... tcount=197


So we're assuming that total production is the sum of all the bottlings, correct?
Max

Proudly ITB -

Tony V e l e b i l
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: January 27th 2009, 4:00pm
Location: Rockridge (Oakland, CA)

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #499  Postby Tony V e l e b i l » July 21st 2009, 8:41am

Dan - I think Parker is a little off. The only thing that has been admitted to are 3 different runs of the bottling. No exact numbers in each "lot". They have admitted one of these runs was excessively filtered and that is the problem lot.

I still don't buy it. And Parker still doesn't get it
“Remember,” said John Adams, “de
User avatar
Steve Manzi
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 12779
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:55pm
Location: North/Central NJ

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #500  Postby Steve Manzi » July 21st 2009, 8:44am

Max Marinucci wrote:Nice post there by Parker, who still does not explain why it took JM 10 months to re-taste a wine of very dubious quality that in the process was being sold as a great 96 pointer. Also, I do not understand...is the 16,000-20,000 bottles just the supposed "first cuvee" or the total of the three bottling? If the total production was about 1500 cases and more was bottled subsequently, it sounds like fraud to me.


Max,

Some major problems with that response:

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showpost.php?p=2700644&postcount=197


1. the first bottling...believed by Jay to be the only bottling since this was a very limited cuvee...16,000 or 20,000 bottles, was of very high quality...that seems to be the consensus from those who tasted it and bought it.
2. subsequent releases...now we know there were two further bottlings admitted to.....presumably offered something completely different than what was in the first bottling...can cooked storage/distribution scenarios explain this?...I am not inferring fraud(as the backroom lawyers know,impossible to prove)....which would be the case if a completely different wine were intentionally subsituted and used to fulfill subequent orders based on the "salting the market" with the first super cuvee...ONly one BIG problem Bob: I bought from the first lot number (as I understand it so far) L -8113. It was bought on PRE arrival from Wine Library, and my three bottle numbers I have left of my 6 bottles are 00622, 00626 and 00635. Kenney's numbers are much higher, I forget them, but same lot number. Apparently, from the WL's mouth, and I totally trust them, they have customers who loved the wine and came back for more. Rest assure, mine was not an "I was not happy with the wine", it was the wine was UNdrinkable. So, how did Kenney and I get only undrinkable bottles from the first lot IF this was the totally GREAT lot? THE investigation needs to continue. AND I will continue to state that ONE GOOD BOTTLE AND ONE BAD BOTTLE NEEDS TO BE TESTED IF TWA wants to clear this up independently.
3. all of us taste with well-known and respected importers....we also are like truffle dogs looking to find unknown treasures....the risk of being duped is always present...you minimize it by tasting with conscientious people in the trade...my experience with Eric Solomon's Las Rochas was an example where the importer quickly established the cooperative in Spain was bottling different wine than what he had originally ordered and sold...it was settled,and the cooperative learned a valuable lesson...
4.the risk of any winery doing this is a one-time 'score'....and then a complete destruction of their brand credibility as the inferior second batches are released...ultimately catastrophic, and the over-whelming reasons why we see very little of this type of scamming...
5. usually the answer is not fraud...but simple negligence/incompetence in the winery... To ONLY place negligence/incompetence on the winery, is woefully inadequate. Well Oiled and Jay have not, and should not be cleared of their role in this.but I will say no more until the importer posts a satisfactory explanation...which he realizes he must do for his own salvation in this matter...
Now this is a great example of the "positive " power of the internet
Along with the power of the Internet to apply honest and continuous pressure to conduct investigations that are clear of any suspicion.
______________________________________________________________
User avatar
Steve Eisenhauer
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: January 27th 2009, 3:02pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #501  Postby Steve Eisenhauer » July 21st 2009, 8:51am

Max Marinucci wrote:Nice post there by Parker, who still does not explain why it took JM 10 months to re-taste a wine of very dubious quality that in the process was being sold as a great 96 pointer. Also, I do not understand...is the 16,000-20,000 bottles just the supposed "first cuvee" or the total of the three bottling? If the total production was about 1500 cases and more was bottled subsequently, it sounds like fraud to me.



Exactly, and the silliness about the producer "doing an investigation" and providing a "satisfactory explanation" just smells badly.

Other people have hit the nail on the head. The tasting protocol actually used by WA (as opposed to the one it proclaims on its front page - how many years has there been a discrepancy between the two, btw?) leads to too many opportunities for things to go south.
User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #502  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 9:00am

Matt Hartley wrote:
Do you really want credit for this? If so, why?


Matt,

3, 4, 5 are important steps. #6 was a joke to take credit for and 1 and 2 were parker's ideas of taking control of the situation. So yes, I will take some credit. Posting TNs is very important. Parker says that they are more important than the score.

I do not know your store, but we may have similar biz models, or may be very different. I am the principal of mine. I am in this to make money. Period. I write my paychecks, which helps pay the mortgage, and puts food on the table. I do what is best for my family with my business.
ITB

ht
User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #503  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 9:06am

Steve Eisenhauer wrote:
Max Marinucci wrote:Nice post there by Parker, who still does not explain why it took JM 10 months to re-taste a wine of very dubious quality that in the process was being sold as a great 96 pointer. Also, I do not understand...is the 16,000-20,000 bottles just the supposed "first cuvee" or the total of the three bottling? If the total production was about 1500 cases and more was bottled subsequently, it sounds like fraud to me.



Exactly, and the silliness about the producer "doing an investigation" and providing a "satisfactory explanation" just smells badly.

Other people have hit the nail on the head. The tasting protocol actually used by WA (as opposed to the one it proclaims on its front page - how many years has there been a discrepancy between the two, btw?) leads to too many opportunities for things to go south.

[winner.gif] [winner.gif] [winner.gif]
ITB

ht
Larry Kaplan
 
Posts: 481
Joined: May 28th 2009, 6:17pm
Location: Palatine, Illinois

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #504  Postby Larry Kaplan » July 21st 2009, 9:07am

Well oiled was founded in 2005 how can this be a well established and trusted importer as refered to in Parker's post when this was clearly only their first or second go around with TWA.
Last edited by Larry Kaplan on July 21st 2009, 9:35am, edited 1 time in total.
The Wine Cellar
User avatar
John Morris
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 7098
Joined: June 21st 2009, 2:09pm
Location: New York City

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #505  Postby John Morris » July 21st 2009, 9:11am

Daniel Posner wrote:As for two bottlings, as John Morris has pointed out, has that been verified anywhere. Parker just posted it, but that is news to me.


Dan! You haven't been paying attention! Sleeping rather than spending your time committing these threads to memory, I have to suppose.

Mark Clinard from Well Oiled said that there were three bottling runs: http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... stcount=39

Parker in his posting today referred to two further bottlings after the one that Miller tasted, though it's not clear if he actually knows anything beyond what Clinard posted.

It's funny that Clinard first asked people to send him their bottle numbers, which wouldn't help much if there were multiple bottlings, each with their own numbering sequence. Then he told people that the number he was looking for was the one that followed the little L (i.e., the lot number): http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... stcount=20

Sounds like he's not too clear on the lot number concept.
Last edited by John Morris on July 21st 2009, 9:16am, edited 1 time in total.
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." -- variously attributed and constantly corroborated
User avatar
Faryan Amir-Ghassem¡
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: June 18th 2009, 1:13pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #506  Postby Faryan Amir-Ghassem¡ » July 21st 2009, 9:15am

I'd like to say that many members who have posted investigatory questions about Well Oiled, including myself, have been contacted by Mark Clinard. I found the contact to be somewhat suspicious, but it could be innocuous. My gut tells me something is up.
She ask me if I do this everyday
User avatar
Todd F r e n c h
Site AdminSite Admin
Head Babysitter
 
Posts: 31154
Joined: January 27th 2009, 9:46am
Location: San Clemente, CA

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #507  Postby Todd F r e n c h » July 21st 2009, 9:15am

Steve Manzi wrote:
That is how we deal here. Have respect for this board and come here without the preconceived notion that we are a board of "the banned" looking to hate those responsible. We are legitimate and we take this board seriously.


Well said, Steve. Perhaps, there was a strong basis for this early on, but not anymore, as our content speaks for itself, without question. Personal vendettas, should they exist, would exist anyway, whether this forum community was in existence or not. Each of those who might have such a vendetta probably has a reason for it - it's not for me to judge, nor is it for me to decide what is 'acceptable' in that regard, unless it steps over the line into mean-spirited personal attacks, in which case it gets nuked, and a PM is sent to the party who posted it in the first place. The input of the community, our growth, and the quality of the content here has most definitely legitimized the forum community as a whole.

Humberto Dorta wrote:FWIW I enjoy your posts on Ebob. From a selfish standpoint would love to see you post here more, since I spend more time here ;)


I would strongly echo this statement. Neal, I would LOVE to have your participation on our forum, and hope that you don't simply take a look at this one thread, but see the hundreds of tasting notes, the fantastic discussions of those ITB (retailers and makers), and the general 'free' concept we have here, combined with some great tasters who I'm sure will appreciate your input. See us for the 99.99%, not the .01%...

Peter Simpson wrote:Roy, I couldn't agree more!

I joined this board some time ago, but have been reluctant to post here because of the vitriolic nature of the personal attacks being made on Jay Miller.

I have no great love for Miller and, IMHO, it is fine to discuss the merits of a critic's reviews and methodology, but repeated comments about that critic's dining habits or statements that he is lazy are too much for me.

I am sure Dan and Steve are great guys, but these bitter posts do their cause more harm than good, and leave us neutrals wondering if this board really is a place where we might want to hang out.


Peter, I would echo my statements above - particularly the last one. The lone voices of those who might be perceived as having a 'vendetta' toward one individual in the profession (or one group) does NOT a whole community make. You give these single (or multiple) individuals so much influence, while the 1000 plus others have no consideration? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. As a whole, there is NO group vendetta or purposeful attack against any one person, group, or company. That's the truth.

It's been said many times that individuals who find a post or thread uncomfortable should avoid it, and look at all the rest of the spectacular content that has made us grow as fast and boldly as we have. It's not been the criticism here and there, it's been the overall content, the great TN's, the CT integration, and the warm reception provided to those ITB. I think we are given greater scrutiny by many who are 'not sure' about us because we are new. I know the same complaining exists on many other forums, including the one in question, but they are apparently not held in the same light of judgment as we are. I can accept that, as I know the overall quality of this forum speaks for itself, and with a ratio of probably 10,000 to 1 for quality versus complaining, we're on a great track for future growth as well.

I encourage everybody to look at the REST of the forum - see what the WHOLE community is all about, not the lone voices that prove to be disruptive to you. Don't judge based on one or two people, as you wouldn't for any country you visit, or any company you choose to do business with.

I'd point out also that I have no interest in this topic at all. I don't care if there was some fraudulent activity somewhere else - it doesn't bother me in this instance, therefore I don't participate in the thread. For those for whom it does, however, I'm happy to provide a vehicle in which they can discuss it.
Apparently I'm lazy, have a narrow agenda, and offer little in the way of content and substance (RMP)
User avatar
Steve Manzi
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 12779
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:55pm
Location: North/Central NJ

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #508  Postby Steve Manzi » July 21st 2009, 9:47am

I would like to point out, to Todd, and the community as a whole, along with others who just pop in to take a look.

1) I don't believe I have had any negative thing to say about Jay Miller before this thread. I may be mistaken, but I don't believe I am.

2) I only took interest in this incident because Robert Kenney (a friend) who is the one responsible for me buying this wine last year, called me like 6 times in one day about this, and got be interested in it, and quite honestly, it became a passion to get to the truth, simply because the more questions Kenney and I asked each other, the more questions arose. It fed on itself, simply because there ARE tons of suspicious things that went on and continue to go on.

3) Due to the totally inadequate nature of the investigation, along with the seemingly lack of caring by Jay Miller, the need for Kenney and I to find out the truth became extremely strong.

4) During our quest, the number of people joining in was astounding, from both boards

5) Because I am recovering from surgery, I have SO much time on my hands, that I have been focused on this quest, and it may seem like I am OVERLY dedicated to it. I have not had wine since 6/24, so I have very little interest in reading other threads, although the last 2 days, I have begun to do so.

6) When people accuse me of having a vendetta, or taking glee in trying to take down Jay or TWA, I take offense to that.

I believe all I have done is taken an investigation very seriously, at a time when I have MORE time on my hands than is probably healthy, so it comes across as a mission to go after Jay.

Bitterness is a strong word, and I take offense to that label. Passion is not bitterness. I have not received any PM from anyone indicating I have been over the line. If I have gone over the line, I would appreciate a PM showing me, so that I can correct it. Again, passionate search of the truth and pointing out instances of laziness, complacency, suspicion, and outright mistakes of things stated as facts, is not bitterness. Outrage at incompetency is not bitterness.
______________________________________________________________
Tony V e l e b i l
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: January 27th 2009, 4:00pm
Location: Rockridge (Oakland, CA)

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #509  Postby Tony V e l e b i l » July 21st 2009, 9:58am

From Robert Parker in the Sierra Carche thread on eBob:

lots of travel and winery visits...lots of centralized tastings with importers/distributors/syndicates..


Doesn't this contradict his claim that he tastes blind whenever possible and that he purchases 60% of the wines he reviews?
“Remember,” said John Adams, “de
User avatar
Bill Tex Landreth
SubscriberSubscriber
Enabler
 
Posts: 19993
Joined: January 27th 2009, 12:45pm
Location: DFW

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #510  Postby Bill Tex Landreth » July 21st 2009, 10:05am

Tony V e l e b i l wrote:From Robert Parker in the Sierra Carche thread on eBob:

lots of travel and winery visits...lots of centralized tastings with importers/distributors/syndicates..


Doesn't this contradict his claim that he tastes blind whenever possible and that he purchases 60% of the wines he reviews?



Well yeah....
Only the English are learned or gentlemanly. Us redneck best go screw our sisters. Overestimation will be me excuse for all future criminal activities.
Thomas Puricelli
 
Posts: 1080
Joined: June 8th 2009, 11:14am

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #511  Postby Thomas Puricelli » July 21st 2009, 10:23am

I'm not a big poster on either board, but have read both threads. It looks like Jay Miller got duped here and his lack of interest in trying the bottle sent to him (or laziness as some people have indicated) has substantially delayed this issue being brought to light. That said, and as someone clearly not "itb", where were all the retailers for the past several months will Miller was sitting on his bottle? Did any retailers try this wine before they bought it? If not, why not? If they didn't try it before purchase, when they received the wine from the distributor, did they just put it out on the floor and let the lemmings have at it? Shouldn't these retailers have recognized that the wine was bad and done something about it?

It's instances such as these that highlight the importance of working with retailers that try every bottle that they sell and stand behind their product. Period. From what I have read, this situation is not a case of "it may be 96 points, but it is just not my style. Some of my customers will love it though." It sounds like the product is undrinkable and no good retailer would sell this wine. Maybe I am naive, but I like to believe that the owners of the stores that I frequent would (1) not have accepted delivery of this wine and (2) would certainly not have sold it to their customers.

I could really care less about Jay Miller and The Wine Advocate, but from my vantage point we have a bad actor that was surrounded by a lot of lazy/careless players. Hopefully all parties step up their respective games following this debacle.
User avatar
Brian Loring
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 807
Joined: January 27th 2009, 8:28pm
Location: Lompoc

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #512  Postby Brian Loring » July 21st 2009, 10:28am

One general comment...

It's virtually impossible to come up with a process that guarantees that "doctored" wines won't get reviewed. And no matter what you came up with, I bet someone could still figure out a way to cheat the system.

The good news is that the system has a built in protection against this happening too often - and we're seeing it in action right now. No winery or importer can survive the type of negative publicity that happens when they get caught. That deterent is far more effective at preventing cheating than any process could ever be.

And to be fair to JSM, his tasting methods don't really come into play in this case. Not that I'm defending his tasting methods in any way. You may question how long it took him to taste the wine that was sent to him, but there are a lot of reasons why he might not have gotten to it immediately. Including not wanting to set a precedent of having consumers send him wine to taste when they thought something was wrong with his review. That's a can of worms that no reviewer wants to see opened.
Loring Wine Company
User avatar
Steve Manzi
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 12779
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:55pm
Location: North/Central NJ

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #513  Postby Steve Manzi » July 21st 2009, 10:31am

Thomas Puricelli wrote:I'm not a big poster on either board, but have read both threads. It looks like Jay Miller got duped here and his lack of interest in trying the bottle sent to him (or laziness as some people have indicated) has substantially delayed this issue being brought to light. That said, and as someone clearly not "itb", where were all the retailers for the past several months will Miller was sitting on his bottle? Did any retailers try this wine before they bought it? If not, why not? If they didn't try it before purchase, when they received the wine from the distributor, did they just put it out on the floor and let the lemmings have at it? Shouldn't these retailers have recognized that the wine was bad and done something about it?

It's instances such as these that highlight the importance of working with retailers that try every bottle that they sell and stand behind their product. Period. From what I have read, this situation is not a case of "it may be 96 points, but it is just not my style. Some of my customers will love it though." It sounds like the product is undrinkable and no good retailer would sell this wine. Maybe I am naive, but I like to believe that the owners of the stores that I frequent would (1) not have accepted delivery of this wine and (2) would certainly not have sold it to their customers.

I could really care less about Jay Miller and The Wine Advocate, but from my vantage point we have a bad actor that was surrounded by a lot of lazy/careless players. Hopefully all parties step up their respective games following this debacle.


Tom,

I believe that Jay tasted a "great" bottle. Of that I have no doubt.

I bought mine, as did Robert Kenney, on PRE arrival from the Wine Library. My guess is that at some point, they tasted this wine, and IF it was a bad bottle, they would have investigated. Again, my guess is that they blew through this PRE arrival offer in a matter of hours. Many picked up their wines and did not try it. Others let it sit there until they were ready to pick up or ship the other orders together. Plus, the Wine Library has stated that they had people repeat purchase, so some bottles of the FIRST run, were fine, some (Like mine,a nd Kenney's) were undrinkable.

The PLCB says they drank a bottle before their purchase, and said it was very nice..."not a 96, but well over 90" or something to that effect.

I cannot believe ANY wine store took that wine IF they tasted it. And if they only took a few cases, I can understand not tasting it.

Hope that helps.
______________________________________________________________
User avatar
Steve Manzi
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 12779
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:55pm
Location: North/Central NJ

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #514  Postby Steve Manzi » July 21st 2009, 10:34am

Brian Loring wrote:One general comment...

It's virtually impossible to come up with a process that guarantees that "doctored" wines won't get reviewed. And no matter what you came up with, I bet someone could still figure out a way to cheat the system.

The good news is that the system has a built in protection against this happening too often - and we're seeing it in action right now. No winery or importer can survive the type of negative publicity that happens when they get caught. That deterent is far more effective at preventing cheating than any process could ever be.

And to be fair to JSM, his tasting methods don't really come into play in this case. Not that I'm defending his tasting methods in any way. You may question how long it took him to taste the wine that was sent to him, but there are a lot of reasons why he might not have gotten to it immediately. Including not wanting to set a precedent of having consumers send him wine to taste when they thought something was wrong with his review. That's a can of worms that no reviewer wants to see opened.


Brian,

Then Jay should have decline the offer from his number ONE fan, to send him a bottle at his own expense, along with the overnighting of it, again at Kenney's expense. Then, 78 e-mails were exchange back and forth promising that he would get to it very soon.

Completely unacceptable.
______________________________________________________________
Roy Hersh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: January 29th 2009, 11:16pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #515  Postby Roy Hersh » July 21st 2009, 10:39am

Now, for you to start this "We all have an agenda to take down Jay and the WA" bullshit, is just insulting to me, many others here, and THIS board.



Steve Manzi,
Misquoting and getting your panties in a knot when I clearly stated that I had an issue with Daniel Posner's position ... nothing about anyone else or you in particular. You then get caught up in this silly diatribe ... chill out. Speaking of knee jerk reactions.

I joined this Forum early on and have enjoyed my time here, reading more than posting. Calling me out because I don't post enough for your liking is not going to feel user friendly to others who may be lurking and thinking of posting here in the future. I know we never get on people for their quantity of posts like you and Peter C. have done. That is just bad form.

I have my own Forum to run and that's where I choose to do most of my posting. Shoot me if I am not posting here or on Squires' enough for your liking. I have posted in dozens of threads HERE though, and like I said, I enjoy my time here and have plenty of friends on this Forum too. If you seriously have a problem with my quantity of posts, too bad.

To be clear (especially for Manzi), I have zero doubt that any FACTS represented by Dan Posner's investigative reporting are true. I have read all of the nonsense leveled at Miller. Clearly he is in way over his head and continues to wind up in trouble ... Parker has supported him to the best of his ability too (for better, but usually worse). I don't take issue with the fact that these points are brought up and exposed -- as truth deserves to be. It is the reason I initially came over here in the first place. I don't believe I have been a trouble maker here or on Squires. You can disagree with my POV and so can Dan Posner. I just stated an opinion and don't really care if it is popular or not ... and don't expect Manzi to agree. He gets way too emotional, way too fast anyway. Dan Posner on the other hand, maintains a calm that I prefer and from his response, I appreciate that he has read my thoughts and observation, can hear what I've had to say and move on.

That is fine with me and like I said, I respect Dan and have for years. In fact, I truly hope to be able to sit and drink some fine wine with him during one of my NY trips. That said, it seems to me that he is OVERALL heavy handed in lobbing bombs all around RP/Miller/Squires with what seems like a vendetta. If that is not the case, fine. I am just stating that (and it is clear I am not alone in this "feeling") it seems like it was a personal mission. That is not about THIS thread in particular ... it is a general statement having seen LOTS of threads bringing up every miscue and f*ck up that goes on over there. It is tiresome to continue to read negative stuff with such frequency. So while not having ANY issue with this thread or the basis in fact with this particular Spanish bottling ... that as Dan pointed out, and Steve M. ... with 10 months allowing the other bottle to sit in the cellar ... alot of damage control could have been done to prevent the ongoing shit storm. For the last time, my comment was not aimed at the gist of the main issue in this thread, just questioning the motivation, just like many questions have been leveled at Miller himself.

In closing, I still say this Forum can be a great place and if you want others like Neal, me or whomever else to post more ... a bit more positive energy and less negativity, would go a long way to making this a better place to want to come for others.

Manzi, get off your high horse ... you are so much like Squires in taking stuff personally that is not even directed at you ... that the irony is remarkable.
Last edited by Roy Hersh on July 21st 2009, 10:42am, edited 1 time in total.
Roy Hersh
fortheloveofport.com
User avatar
Faryan Amir-Ghassem¡
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: June 18th 2009, 1:13pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #516  Postby Faryan Amir-Ghassem¡ » July 21st 2009, 10:39am

Brian Loring wrote:One general comment...

It's virtually impossible to come up with a process that guarantees that "doctored" wines won't get reviewed. And no matter what you came up with, I bet someone could still figure out a way to cheat the system.

The good news is that the system has a built in protection against this happening too often - and we're seeing it in action right now. No winery or importer can survive the type of negative publicity that happens when they get caught. That deterent is far more effective at preventing cheating than any process could ever be.

And to be fair to JSM, his tasting methods don't really come into play in this case. Not that I'm defending his tasting methods in any way. You may question how long it took him to taste the wine that was sent to him, but there are a lot of reasons why he might not have gotten to it immediately. Including not wanting to set a precedent of having consumers send him wine to taste when they thought something was wrong with his review. That's a can of worms that no reviewer wants to see opened.


Astute points.
She ask me if I do this everyday
User avatar
b hudak
 
Posts: 3855
Joined: January 29th 2009, 9:42am

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #517  Postby b hudak » July 21st 2009, 10:41am

Neal.Mollen wrote:[ I merely made the observation that a few individuals do seem to have been engaged in precisely the sort of behavior Roy identified, .


Neal:
I certainly have not problem with you posting here. As for me, I have always said, and still maintain, that I am a big fan of Robert Parker, and a big fan of the WA. The fact that I spend some time here does not change that. This BB does have a different personality, and IMHO does better when it does not focus on the other BB.
However, this case is a bit of an exception. While I have a dog in this Sierra Carche mess, ultimately, it is only $250 or so worth of wine, and it won't break me. However, I personally am sad to have reached the point where I feel that some of the advice I get from the WA is less than reliable. I hope that changes. I hope that RMP respects that great brand that he himself has invented. I still remain a fan of his writings, reviews, and his palate.
Bob

Fadades Rules!
User avatar
Keith Levenberg
 
Posts: 4605
Joined: June 6th 2009, 3:11pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #518  Postby Keith Levenberg » July 21st 2009, 10:49am

Steve Eisenhauer wrote:Other people have hit the nail on the head. The tasting protocol actually used by WA (as opposed to the one it proclaims on its front page - how many years has there been a discrepancy between the two, btw?) leads to too many opportunities for things to go south.
This is exactly right. Granted I am out of touch with what wines are darlings of the WA these days, but I have never heard of Sierra Carche before this thread and don't gather too many other people have heard of or cared about it either. If this issue were about one obscure wine it is doubtful that as many people as have posted on these threads would have bothered. The reason this has become a topic of interest is because of what it says about the WA's reviewing procedures. Whatever is going on with Sierra Carche is a small scandal, but the way the WA has primed itself to be taken in by such small scandals is a big scandal.
User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #519  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 11:38am

Roy Hersh wrote:

To be clear (especially for Manzi), I have zero doubt that any FACTS represented by Dan Posner's investigative reporting are true. I have read all of the nonsense leveled at Miller. Clearly he is in way over his head and continues to wind up in trouble ... Parker has supported him to the best of his ability too (for better, but usually worse). I don't take issue with the fact that these points are brought up and exposed -- as truth deserves to be. It is the reason I initially came over here in the first place. I don't believe I have been a trouble maker here or on Squires. You can disagree with my POV and so can Dan Posner. I just stated an opinion and don't really care if it is popular or not ... and don't expect Manzi to agree. He gets way too emotional, way too fast anyway. Dan Posner on the other hand, maintains a calm that I prefer and from his response, I appreciate that he has read my thoughts and observation, can hear what I've had to say and move on.


Thank you Roy, we can have that drink now. ;)

FYI, we sat next to each other at the first annual Lugaresque, if I am not mistaken. I poured you the Yalumba 50 year old tawny. Proof that I drink Aussies!

I appreciate all opinions. I just hope that those dissenters read as closely as I know Roy and Neal have. They have a problem with me personally, in the way that I have continued to "bash" this thing home. I am okay with that. If I did not do it, no one else would have. I am willing to be the "martyr" as Levenberg said once. I have everything to lose here, and not much to gain, except for integrity. I have loads of integrity! [training.gif]
ITB

ht
bvm winemaker
 
Posts: 2
Joined: July 21st 2009, 12:24pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Reply from the winery

Post #520  Postby bvm winemaker » July 21st 2009, 12:32pm

We produced a single tank of 180 hl for Sierra Carche 2005 and a sample was submitted to the Wine Advocate for tasting in November 2007. We bottled the full quantity over two days and labeled 20,000 bottles for Well Oiled Wine Co order (lots 8113 & 8114) and we reserved the remnant (3,600 bottles) into clean skin stock (lot 7033). Following the wine’s successful reception among customers and reviewers, we shipped the remnant lot 7033 to additional markets including 1050 bottles to the US. At the request of Mark Clinard at WOW Co following the complaint by the Wine Advocate, we re-tasted the wine and while we found no problems, we also sent samples for analysis at an independent laboratory. We will report the results as soon as they are available. In the meantime, in keeping with our policy on all wines delivered to any customer, BVM will honor any returns of Sierra Carche 2005.
User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #521  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 12:38pm

Thank you BVM winemaker, do not log out yet, as I believe Steve Manzi willhave some interesting questions for you.

Like, does the three lot numbers constitute "three runs" of this wine as Mark of Well Oiled has eluded to?

Maybe Robert Kenney should ship you, free of charge, a btl from his cellar. Just do not take 10 months to sample it.

Seriously, I wish I knew your name, but thank you for logging on here and addressing this situation!
ITB

ht
Fernando Losada
 
Posts: 34
Joined: May 28th 2009, 1:32pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #522  Postby Fernando Losada » July 21st 2009, 12:45pm

bvm = Bodegas y Vinedos de Murcia?
User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Reply from the winery

Post #523  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 12:53pm

bvm winemaker wrote:We produced a single tank of 180 hl for Sierra Carche 2005 and a sample was submitted to the Wine Advocate for tasting in November 2007. We bottled the full quantity over two days and labeled 20,000 bottles for Well Oiled Wine Co order (lots 8113 & 8114) and we reserved the remnant (3,600 bottles) into clean skin stock (lot 7033). Following the wine’s successful reception among customers and reviewers, we shipped the remnant lot 7033 to additional markets including 1050 bottles to the US. At the request of Mark Clinard at WOW Co following the complaint by the Wine Advocate, we re-tasted the wine and while we found no problems, we also sent samples for analysis at an independent laboratory. We will report the results as soon as they are available. In the meantime, in keeping with our policy on all wines delivered to any customer, BVM will honor any returns of Sierra Carche 2005.


BVM,

What you have written here is not what Mark Clinard, Robert Parker or Jay Miller has led us to believe up to this point. I just want you to know that.
ITB

ht
User avatar
Todd F r e n c h
Site AdminSite Admin
Head Babysitter
 
Posts: 31154
Joined: January 27th 2009, 9:46am
Location: San Clemente, CA

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #524  Postby Todd F r e n c h » July 21st 2009, 12:58pm

Fernando Losada wrote:bvm = Bodegas y Vinedos de Murcia?

A PM has been sent requesting a change in username...just fyi
Apparently I'm lazy, have a narrow agenda, and offer little in the way of content and substance (RMP)
User avatar
Neal.Mollen
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 14476
Joined: January 30th 2009, 2:26pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #525  Postby Neal.Mollen » July 21st 2009, 1:02pm

Daniel Posner wrote:I just hope that those dissenters read as closely as I know Roy and Neal have. They have a problem with me personally, in the way that I have continued to "bash" this thing home.
No, Dan, I have no problem with you personally, as I hope has been clear throughout our exchanges. I think you have totally lost perspective on this all things related to Robert Parker. He is Dr. Big Jay, not Dr. Mengele. Other people get annoyed, frustrated, even angry when he or TWA makes a mistake; you get excited.

Thanks, though, for your kind words earlier and those of some others welcoming my post.
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

Return to Wine Talk