Modified Davis 20 point system

I have absolutely no confidence in any review in the Spectator---they claim to be doing them blind but I was amazed when they gave a 72 to a Bruno Giacosa Barolo--when Giacosa opens his eyes in the morning he's already at 80.

One would be amazed how an increase in the size of an advertisement could get a wine a 90 point score when an earlier tasting had the wine at 88 or 89. Steiman has a decent palate even though he's a **** in public. Suckling is a left handed hand shaker, only the true players in the wine universe get to shake his right hand. Laube is in it for the book sales. The restaurant awards is a great way to give Shanken's scribes a free meal.

The difference between Parker, Tanzer, Coates and the Spectator is that the Spectator is a bottom line business. Everything is geared to making it seem like they're the Playboy or Esquire of wine, telling their readers who's hot who's not. When they decide to do a feature on a wine region is like a bunch of piglets running for the troth. I do not know for sure what freebies the Spectator gets but I'm sure they're shown a grand time.

I think the Wine Advocate is followed in the Northeast and major cities in the USA but in the rest of the country its the Spectator. I don't how many sales I didn't get because the Spectator wouldn't take my samples--they want 4-6 of each wine. A broker from Oz told me how he gets his wines reviewed, give the office workers lots of samples. Another way is buy a signifigent number of tickets to one of the WS' "events"and schmooze Marvin. Getting a celeb to be featured in the WS is a plus. I understand some Lone Star winery & sheep ranch, promised Marvin an interview with VP Cheney's human target. The man is a major investor in local wineries and has buttembled a collection of Mouton Cadet back to the 1930's.

My answer is that in the mind of Robert Parker et al, there's a difference between 89 and 91 points. In the Wine Spectator its a function of the weekly cash-flow.