On 2008-04-02 10:19:06 -0700, AxisOfBeagles > said:

> One observation - just to be a contrarian ...
>
> we (the curmudgeons who post on internet wine forums and rant about the
> Wine Dictator) can't have it both ways; declaring the WS to be
> mis-informed and self-serving, while at the same time using them as a
> reference for the unworthiness of any given wine.
>
> Just to play devil's advocate (along the lines of the usual
> characterizations of WS) - maybe the wine is fine, but refused to pay
> homage to Suckling or whomever. Result - a shocking rating intended to
> punish the infidel winery.
>
> I know - unlikely - but heck, it really is kinda two-faced of anyone on
> this forum to hold up a WS rating as evidence of a wine's unworthiness,
> when we refuse to accept their vouchsafing any wine's worthiness, isn't
> it?

Well, I don't take their word as LAW, but I also don't think they are
23 points off on any one wine, either. This vertical they are
reporting on has 26 vintages, with a 100, a 99, 16 others judged in the
90's and the rest in the 80's except for the 91 given a 79 score. My
point, I guess, is that if they say that it shouldn't have been
bottled, I would trust that enough not to pay over $400 for a bottle.

The suspicions confirmed is that the price is a function of label,
rather than content. I think UC (another dreaded entity :-) would love
this...

Jim