I agree with the fact that there is no practical way for Wine Spectator to rigorously investigate every restaurant (though there seems to be a conflict between Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Matthews regarding the extent to which Spectator made an effort to contact/investigate). What I really thought was most interesting about the whole experiment/hoax, though, was the issue of the reserve wine list, which I don’t think you mention. Mr. Goldstein explains on his website that the majority of the award-winning list was made up of wines that WS had given very low scores and usually poor descriptions of in the past.

Does the Magazine also not have enough time to check the wine list against its own prior judgments? I’m not well versed here but isn’t that a big point of the whole award program in the first place? While it was mildly amusing to see that someone could get away with winning with a fake restaurant, what really gets me is the contradiction with the “reserve” wine list and its supposed level of quality, as determined by the Magazine itself. The ratings and descriptions that WS gives to the wines that eventually merit such an award are interesting to read. Maybe it just means the Magazine should limit the awards further – maybe charge even more in order to make up the lost revenue?

Kylor

I appreciate your reconsideration of this issue. Wine Spectator was deceived, and must be more vigilant. And we will work hard to strengthen and improve our wine list awards program, so that it is even more valuable both to the restaurateurs and to consumers.

But we still think it’s a worthy goal to encourage restaurants — even modest restaurants — to improve their wine programs. And we hope the hoax doesn’t cast a shadow over the very real accomplishments of the thousands of restaurants who have legitimately earned their awards from us.

Thomas Matthews
Executive editor
Wine Spectator