I know. It's a shock. But take a deep breath, and I'll explain.
In the current issue, they've printed a letter from a reader who blames Wine Spectator for promoting monstrous wine lists, and he goes on to decry the trend. "I am not happy when I am handed a 5-pound book," writes William Stein, "that requires a large part of the evening to study." He suggests Wine Spectator stop considering a list's sheer size "as a requisite for a Grand Award."
Wine Spectator's response? "Some wine drinkers may be intimidated by comprehensive wine lists, just as some art lovers may be intimidated by the Louvre. But like the greatest museums, the best wine lists offer an abundance of riches." Wow.
I was furious when I read this: The reader didn't say he was intimidated by big wine lists, he just wants some simplification. A good wine list has wines well-matched to the cuisine and thoughtfully chosen by the wine director. You'll find that in small wine lists as well as big ones. This is a subject I've put some thought into. Many big wine lists are simply tedious. Do you really need fifty California Chardonnays of similar vintage in one wine list? As Wine Spectator gives awards to bloated lists, they encourage sommeliers restaurant owners to artificially inflate a wine list with whatever random wines they can find. That's what Stein was trying to say, but Wine Spectator is too arrogant to realize how its awards are destroying quality wine lists.
food & drink | wine | rant