He clearly understood much of what goes on in the world of wine criticism - whether or not he knew much about wine before writing the article. Very well crafted piece; perhaps not in the league of Steven Shapin (see: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n03/shap01_.html ), but then few writers are.

Damn, that Shapin article was very good. Thanks, Mark.

A very thoughtful piece... although I hardly think he is saying that wine writing will be the province of the rich... only a certain kind of wine writing -- ie: reviewing and scoring. He thinks that journalism is alive and well. I'd say that that bodes well for writers like you, rather than the opposite.

One email came in directly to me, thought provoking. If the writer wants to come forward and post with their name, I will be happy to rearrange my own post and give them their due.

+++
By the way, I liked that article you linked to on your blog today. My one little problem with it: I think it is a bit unrealistic when he says real critics need to be deeply familiar with Musigny and top Bordeaux, things like that. Maybe it used to be true, but now that so few actually drink those wines, its like saying that a car critic must be deeply experienced with a Rolls Royce or Lamborghini in order to write knowledgably about a Ford. Just not true.

+++

I wrote back with the message that Musigny and the rest of the exalted Burgundy vineyards and appelations were benchmarks and to not know them was like studying film and never having studies Fellini or even Chaplin. There are a slew of better analogies. How can you be a shrink and not study Freud or have been in analysis? Now that one might be a better one as it is so expensive.

But what if, what if film (going back to that) was the playground of the rich as wine is now, and what if the cost of viewing Jules et Jim was $250 a pop and not for a song from Netflix?

Both articles are interesting. I've been writing about this for years; Google tells me April 29, 1999 was the first foray (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/food/99/04/29/UNCORKED.html), and a few years ago at stupefying length here: (http://www.thoriverson.com/documents/faq_independence.html). But, sadly, I agree with Neal Martin: those in search of Hestonesque "authority" are going to have to turn to the wealthy to get it. I don't see them turning away from Musigny to Morgon instead.

I can tell you from personal experience why the Ten Years On tasting was closed to all but the growers. When I attended, I came spring loaded to taste my way methodically from A to Z, from the Bourgogne to the Santenay blanc, the Marsannay to the Chambolle villages to -- eventually - the Chambertin Clos de Beze. "Taste" is the operative word.

Alas, before I got to the "trophy wines," car loads of rock star types in dark clothing and dark glasses descended, poured themselves tumblers of grands crus and proceeded to party like its 1999. Neither I nor most of the growers who had graciously provided the bottles for the tasting (as I also did) got a lick of the wines. This no doubt resulted in the exclusion of myriad hangers on, including, alas, Alice and myself and others in the trade whom i know have been "disinvited" to the event.

Thor, you have read it correctly. Alice, you did not offend Clive. The orginal intent was to provide winemakers with a view of the vintage from Côte to Côte not to have a party. Too many winemakers simply stopped attending and questioning elicited that the Ten Year Tasting was no longer for them. I do regret that
the no-exception clause must be respected...