As for rating check out my blog. I have come up with a fun, not snobbish wine geek manner to rate wines,and other alcoholic drinks. http://www.simbeverage.blogspot.com

Wine,Beer and Spirits are available to enjoy, it’s not rocket science, everyone’s taste buds and noses are different, everyone has a different opinion. I have been in a room of so-called “experts” in the field of wines, beers and spirits and each individual had a different take on the wine they just tasted and spit out.

I am sorry, when I taste a wine, I want to know how it feels going down. Read my new blog and follow me, it will be fun and its the regular Joe and regular Jean who drink wines more than the few wine “snobs” out there. The market for wines, beers and spirits isn’t driven by the few wines experts, its driven by the person who must work 40+ hours a week.
Joe

Having recently shopped for a mixed case of good but moderately priced wines from around the world, I was continually frustrated by shelf-talkers touting an earlier vintage. To my mind, this is a form of bait-and-switch advertising. It also looks tatty when the tags are so old they’re getting ragged around the edges.

As far as not displaying other, lower ratings, I have no problem with that. Consumers should indeed do their own research, but keeping an old score on the shelf for later vintages that might not be nearly as good strikes me as deceptive.

Jane Starwood

Thanks for the mention of PALATE PRESS: The online wine magazine, and for the ongoing conversation. I even appreciate the criticism, for “there is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.” [Brendan BehanIrish author & dramatist (1923 - 1964)]

David Honig

That’s an interesting point you raise on reviews and it is a fine line. I guess there is a difference between manipulating something and selectively leaving something out. I think the difference is one completely misrepresents the intention of the critic while the other is preserving the real score, only selecting items that put the wine in its best light. One is an outright lie and the other is leaving out the complete picture for the benefit of sales.

Unfortunately, what you’re referencing is not illegal, just grossly irresponsible.

@Larry and @Ian For you and I the differences between two vintages of a wine may be as different as two car models or the sequel to a movie but there are a lot of people with more basic wine knowledge who ignore the vintage and focus on the brand. For some, a Cakebread Chardonnay is a Cakebread Chardonnay. There is also something about a certain brand that conveys an image for them or impresses. For these people, the previous vintages are helpful as long as they are clearly listed as associated with the other vintages only. If the previous vintage ratings were disguised as applying to the current vintage, I would certainly take issue with that.

@Sheila I’m happy you’ve discovered a bit more about how shelf talkers work and have adjusted your buying practices accordingly. Whether marketing pieces or not, transparency and clarity should always be paramount.

Erika- Thanks for continuing the conversation on this subject. I consider you a friend too, and respect you even when we disagree.

An important distinction between what Costco/Wine.com do with shelf talkers and other forms of advertising is the source of the message. When I see a paid ad, I fully expect to hear only the best attributes about the product. However, when I see signs at a retailer that relay presumably unbiased third party opinions, my natural inclination is to see them as helpful reference materials. It wasn’t until I did some research that I realized the typical nature of these signs and how they’re cherry picked to show the wine in an unrealistically positive light.

That said, I fully agree that these examples are less egregious than (1) the outright fabrication (or “mistake” as it’s sometimes called) and (2) the no-vintage write-up that a reasonable person would infer is for the wine being sold. These are both far more misleading and troubling.

I have a question for you as a representative of Wine Enthusiast. Since your ratings are used on shelf-talkers, would it bother you if someone took a Wine Enthusiast ad and cherry picked an individual tasting note?

Say this wine that received the absolute lowest rating Wine Enthusiast will publish online (evidently 80): http://buyingguide.winemag.com/item.aspx/4295021321#xr=80

“Overtly floral and jumpy, with potent aromas of perfume. Heavy in the mouth, with odd, bland flavors of applesauce and spice. Soft and sticky.”

…becomes:

“floral…with aromas of perfume. Heavy in the mouth…flavors of applesauce and spice. Soft…”

…and the 80 point rating isn’t mentioned. How would you feel as the publisher of that rating and tasting note if it was selectively leveraged to sell wine? I don’t think it’s much different than when a retailer cherry picks the positive historical ratings you’ve given a wine and suppresses the negative. It doesn’t accurately depict what you’ve thought of the wine. If I bought the wine based on the good things I read on the shelf talker that were attributed to you and I didn’t like the wine, I’d be less likely to trust your ratings and tasting notes in the future.

Robert Dwyer
The Wellesley Wine Press

If you were buying a car, and the dealer kept explaining the features of another model that you weren’t interested in, even saying “your model may not have these features” it still is misleading.

It is not up to the consumer to “read carefully.” It is up to the dealer to be honest and forthright. Hence the movement towards larger type, more transparency, simpler language in “the fine print.”