|
Wine
Spectator
WINE magazine
50 - 74
points
0 Stars
75 - 79
points
1 Star
80 - 84
points
3 Stars
85 - 89
points
3,5 Stars
90 - 94
points
4 to 4,5 Stars
95 - 100
points 5
Stars
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your January 2009 magazine on page 86, your rating system very clearly indicates rating categories of 2 Stars and 2,5 Stars. How convenient for your response that these are overlooked above. Or is your comparison just plain wrong ???
Some more great logic: You later admit that De Toren Fusion V 2005 vintage rated 4 Stars in February 2008 and sank to 2,5 Stars a mere SEVEN months later. You then feebly try and explain why a wine, in your rating terminology, has gone from being an excellent wine of distinction to less than good and and slightly above average in those seven months as follows: " it is possible for a wine to rate a LITTLE (my capitals) differently depending on who's rating it and when, or depending on the condition of the sample - it is THE UNDERSTANDABLE NATURE of ratings that a wine can vary by between 1 and 1,5 Stars, even within 12 months. A little different - how do define a lot?? And aside from the fact that the time period between ratings is closer to 6 than 12 months, I query just whom this is understandable to, other than someone trying to make an excuse for a monumental discrepancy/error??
And finally, by way of example, den Dulk refers to the 2004 and 2006 vintages of De Toren Z which your esteemed panel of experts found ordinary but acceptable ( how very nice of them!)and very generously gave 1 Star. While you try and defend against Platter's rating - where you indicate that the halo effect and a single ( presumably David Swingler is qualified) taster account for the substantial difference between the two ratings, you conveniently ignore the overseas ratings of Steven Tanzer and Wine Enthusiast - I mean really, what do they know that your illustrious panel of 5 experts doesn't ??
Mr. Eedes, your vitriolic response to Emil den Dulk's letter in my opinion discredits both you and the magazine you edit. Rather, it serves to confirm a fairly widely held view that so-called expert wine tasters are nothing more than self-opinionated snobs with little or no ability to ever admit that maybe, just maybe, they can get it wrong from time to time.
Regards,
Myles Ruck
Follow up letter that will not be published
Dear Christian
As I said, never fight with someone with free ink. You said you'd be publishing my letter ,along with your reply, in the March magazine. What you didn't say is that you'd be cowardly publishing an edited version ( entirely in your favour) with excerpts that suited you and, quite frankly, the response to those points chosen by yourself failed spectactularly to answer any of those issues raised.
It is clear that you believe yourself to be above criticism - a bad attitude for an editor. A pity you were so spineless as not to publish the letter in full as you would have had to answer some unpleasant commentary on yourself.
Happily my subscription expires soon and so I will be able to spend my money on something far more worthwhile thereafter - like perhaps a bottle of De Toren Z - or some of the delightful wine that Mr. Peens supplies. You owe Mr. Den Dulk an apology still.
You are a disappointment - what happened to your predecessor - far more objective and less self-opinionated ??
Myles Ruck.
P.S. And please don't publish this at all as I have no idea which selective bits you'll choose to leave out.
P.P.S. To those copied, it is insightful to look at how the letter was edited to suit the needs of the editor. See the March issue versus the letter below. Makes you wonder whether you can believe anything this guy writes. To contextualise it, have a look at his original response to the letter from Emil in the January edition of this illustrious publication - if you still buy it
|
