67 Responses

1. July 24, 2006

   Doug

   Excellent. Seems like someone pissed you off. It’s nice to here blunt honesty especially with the way the market is. I would be interested to know what happened.

2. July 24, 2006

   Tony

   Welcome back. We missed you. Another good episode.

3. July 24, 2006

   joe

   Gary:

   Great to have you back. I missed W-L TV! Please e-mail me back and let me know what went down.

   It has always been real (remember Frog’s Leap?) – perhaps episode 57 is a too (harshly) truthful? Gary, you’re such a nice guy (that is a compliment) – it is too startling to hear you go so negative.

4. July 24, 2006

   John

   Hey Gary,

   Its nice to see you finally back. I got lucky because I was coming by the site to make some purchases and just happened to check and WLTV was back up. If you don’t mind me asking, fill us in on what happened. You seem a bit ticked off….although I’ve been waiting for you to simply annihilate a few wines that you have reviewed which I have previously tasted and knew were horrible. You’ve been politically correct before, and that is somewhat understandable. I’m sure that wineries get kinda upset when they are sending their wine to you to sell and then you cut them down to size on the V-blog. Hey, sometimes the truth hurts, though, and for the sake of the consumer and the industry as a whole, these wineries should not be placated and tiptoed around when they make wine that tastes like horse piss. I commend you on your honesty, but on the next episode, try to have some fun like you used to. Thats what this is all about. On this episode, you seemed out to settle a score. So, no more vendetta…..have fun with Wine Library TV…..we’re glad you are back……tell us what happened with the networks. I, personally, am thrilled that you stayed away from them. Doing it this way keeps it close to the consumer, truthful, unspoiled by bias, untainted by money or political pull, and fun, informative, an entertaining like it should be, and has been from the beginning. So, keep ‘em coming.

   JH

5. July 24, 2006

   John M

   Gary-
   Good to have you back and thanks for going with the honest (yeah, so sometimes it hurts – WAAAH!) approach. Honesty is what I and others count upon in listening to your tastings as well as RP among others. I recognize that tastes vary among people, but that’s not an excuse for padding low scores or talking down better competitors of big sellers. Please let me know what’s going on – as a clinical psychologist, maybe I can help. ROFLMAO!

6. July 24, 2006

   Jeannie Gabrynowicz

   I liked the show! I can never spit out the wine at a tasting and so I begin to forget what I liked and what I didn’t. I enjoyed your take on how the wines taste and smell and how much of a value they are for the price.

7. July 24, 2006

   Rick

   Gary Welcome Back! I have seen you blast several wines before. It must be hard be politically correct when the Winemaker is sitting next to you. If you think that is going to happen. Go ahead and tell them how great it is. When the episode is being aired just flash a Bulls&*t sign above you. They may never come back for a second interview! But who cares if the wine isn’t that great. The regular viewers will know the truth. Please email me the details.

   Rick

8. July 24, 2006

   Gordo

   Gee, Gary, difficult to know just how you feel about those wines. Seems you are in a wee bit of bother, as the Brits might say. I agree with John, be honest, but don’t color your commentary with descriptions that appear to be too personal, even vindictive. Be objective and as dispassionate as possible in judging the selected wines. Most of us can ‘hear between the ears’ that a wine described as ‘not a good effort at this price’ and ‘lacks all character’ means the same as
   ‘it sucks and it tastes like pickle juice’. And John is again right, go back to having fun!

9. July 24, 2006

   R. Beadin

   Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! I couldn’t agree with you more …. I have tried the Paringa, THIS Rosemount (there are others that are excellent) and the Mitolo and I think you are right on the money. In fact I was at a tasting with Mitolo the top wine on the table (at least from a price point) several weeks ago, and the Hanenhof (wonderful wine from ANZ) was a much better wine and value. So keep up the good work. I fully support your approach. To me … the only value in Winelibrary TV is honesty … the wine is good or bad regardless of price – I absolutely support your providing an honest evaluation .. regardless of where that leads. Look forward to meeting you later this week ( and will be happy to hear the details!).

10. July 24, 2006

    Bruce

    Gary,

    Rest assured, the public appreciates the brutal honesty. Because of your willingness to say how you really feel, I have bought wines from you based in large part on your reactions to them on the shows and knowing they were honest opinions, as opposed to sales talk. Keep it up. and please e-mail me the details of what set you on edge.

11. July 24, 2006

    Kevin C

    Gary,

    Best Episode yet ! Don’t let these people tell you how to say the wines suck. If they suck, you should say so. I don’t think you’re being “too personal” nor “vindictive”. When I saw Rosemount on your lineup, I couldn’t wait to see your reaction and what reaction that was. I was dying laughing and my gf thought I was crazy.

    Anyway, it’s good to see you back. Keep up the great work.

12. July 24, 2006

    gearld

    I’m curious- why would you try the merlot last??- It seems to make more sense to try that 1st??- and why would you say never as long as you live buy the rosemount- you didn’t try multiple vintages –or did you??- it really did come off as a “personal”- type thing- this is a great way to get the message out there about lesser known wines and I certainly enjoy “WLTV” and the info. I have even purchased on your info- keep up the good work!

13. July 24, 2006

    Greg

    LOL, that was hilarious. Seriously, great to have you back. Seemed like you were trying to prove a point! It is important that things stay real, otherwise it would be like watching a bunch of commercials. Keep up the good work.

14. July 24, 2006

    DAVID KAPLAN

    Great to see you back. I would like to hear about all of the sordid details vis a vis the networks. It is such a pleasure to see someone with some real integrity.

15. July 24, 2006

    Fred

    3 of 4 suck. Great candor. Keep it up, Gary!!! As much as we appreciate great finds, it’s just as valuable to the consumer to know what NOT to buy. Life is too short to waste time on crappy wine. Your credibility just grew by leaps and bounds.

16. July 24, 2006

    David

    In this episode, Gary suggests that we email him to find out what’s been the hold up with WLTV… what is his email address?

17. July 24, 2006

    Cameron

    Excellent return. You are absolutely making the right move by embracing the video blog format and staying true to your own opinions, rather than risking compromise at the network TV level. The newfound brutal honesty is a welcome change, as it is a trait few critics in the wine industry seem to possess.

18. July 24, 2006

    Wino4Life

    GV
    I have watched almost all the episodes & never sent an e-mail……….this is the best/most exciting episode by far!!!!!
    Could you review some more high-end Italian soon?
    Keep up the good work – sell what you want to sell…..

19. July 24, 2006

    Garry

    Good to have the team back… honest- I was afraid that you would make a mistake by going to the networks. You are leading a wave in video blogging/programming – and it would be a mistake to give up your creative passions and ability to make the types of shows that people want to watch….
    I like the honesty – too brutal? – you’ll never satisfy everyone!

    Speaking of team – how about an episode where we turn the cameras around and see who else is involved…?

20. July 25, 2006

    Bob

    Gary, great to have you back! A classic episode, and your honesty is always appreciated

21. July 25, 2006

    Tony

    Gary,

    Let me add my voice to the chorus of people welcoming you back. Sorely missed you were, and your honesty.

    The networks want you to sell product, ergo you can’t say anything bad about the product. I MUCH prefer to hear you call them as they are. I’ve bought many wines that you’ve recommended and you have been spot on every time.

    In my mind (as a consumer looking for good wines), there is NEVER a reason for you to hold back on your opinion. I want good wines. I watch WLTV to find out about good wines. I’ve come to trust you to tell me about good wines I might want to try as well as wines to avoid. As a consumer, I don’t want to lose that.

    And the networks have it wrong any way. I’ve bought more wine from watching WLTV than is healthy for my checkbook – way more than I would have bought without WLTV. As far as you should be concerned, WLTV has been an incredible success in separating me from by money! But I’ve never been disappointed, so we’re both happy.

    In summary:

    1. Welcome back!!
    2. Call them as you see them
    3. Make nice to no one
    4. Take as much time on an episode as it requires. (Six minutes actually seems short to me.)
    5. Keep doing exactly what you are doing

    And though I can imagine what the networks wanted and said, I’d love to hear the details of your dealings with them.

    P.S. I don’t think that you are too “brutal” or ever “vindictive”. Just tell it like it is. The vendors might not understand or like it, but we do. Truth to tell, I thouroghly enjoy watching you slam a wine. The BV muscat in Ep #39 was classic!

22. July 25, 2006

    P. Hig.

    I appreciate the apparent honesty but I would temper the enthusiasm. While it is no surprise to say the rosemount sucks (no really, ya don’t say), to my taste, most aussie shiraz sucks for the same reason that most california wine sucks, namely that most producers from hot climes have forgotten what wine ultimately is for (or been lured by the call of the dollar) namely to accompany food. No fruit bomb with no acid is going to do much more than get you drunk. That’s fine I guess, but it doesn’t make wine I like, nor, in most cases, will it make wine that will age… in short, that is worthy of my money and my interest. I don’t see why I would pay more that 15 bucks for a wine that will last no more than three or four years and most cali and auz wine won’t–even at the 100 dollar price point…really.
    This DOES NOT MEAN that neither california nor auz can make good wine. Both can. Strangely, it is often the lower end that is the most acceptable to me. The problem is that, drawn into the high alcohol fat fruit trap because it is easy in places with unrelenting sun, both places pick their fruit when it is dead (i.e. it has become grape prunes) rather than at a level of sugar when acid, alcohol and tannin will be well balanced. They do it because Parker has created a market for brawny wines with no class and no aging potential that one can charge a fortune for. In my book, wine above 14% alcohol, is, unless it has massive structure that will allow it to age for twenty years, not of any interest to me.
    Thus, to get back to this and other episodes of WLTV, what is being touted are wines that Wine Library sells and wines that are all too easy to like, especially young. I am always worried about qualifications like “smooth” and “silky.” A wine that is smooth and silky, especially young, will likely not age, and will certainly not be refreshing or cleanse your palate if you are eating. Likewise, being told that there is acidity, as if this were a defect, is a bit worrisome as well. True, there is such a thing as green acidity, or unripe acids, but these can be distinguished from the acids that, for example, make the best of both the red and the white wine worlds, namely Burgundy (at its best). Not surprisingly, yet sadly, there isn’t much Burgundy reviewed here. Sadly because, between 15-40 dollars, there is a great deal of wonderful burgundy. OK, don’t like Burgundy or have something against it, how about covering German reisling more extensively, loire valley reds and whites, etc. Start choking and sputtering on Napa Pinot’s and saying they are a rip and then I will start believing. In the meantime, this is vaguely entertaining but hardly revolutionary.

23. July 25, 2006

    Dale

    Gary:

    While I echo the welcome back’s that you have been getting, this episode was not you and the good, educational, fun, quippy, blog that you have been doing. I have been watching from Episode one and this one was just not right. Bashing the bad is fine, but you just seem pissed at the world in this one and that really detracted from your excitement about wine, which, to me, is the quintessential part of WLTV. I, and most people that work in the service industry, have bad days where people that can control or affect our lives piss us off. But, you need to step above that and provide the same, quality service that we have all come to expect. … unless, of course, this was a contrived effort for some reason to achieve a desired effect, in which case, bravo.

    Dale

24. July 25, 2006

    Bill

    Wow – now that is what we need. As an Aussie I have long been embarrassed by various ‘big-name’ bottles of bat’s-piss mascarading as wine over here. I have been telling people to not buy Rosemount’s base offerings for years, and the Paringa (all versions of it) has always been utter crap (despite good scores). Whatever political pressures have been brought to bear upon you (it would be great to know!) should be resisted, and congratulations on doing so! Hang in there! Best wishes!!

25. July 25, 2006

    Paul

    Good to see your return, Gary. Like many others, I would like to hear what was going on while you were gone, i.e., what inspired the very beginning of this episode. Please email me with the info.

    Regarding your comments herein (and the responses of some of the others on this page): while you do seem a bit upset in this episode, your honest comments on wines are why I watch WLTV. Please keep doing it your way. Those who appreciate what you do and the way you do it will provide an avid and continuing audience. Again, welcome back.

26. July 25, 2006

    Michael P.

    Great to see you come back & with all guns blazing. We need you to keep it real since I rely on your reviews for most of my purchases. What good is WL TV if your there to please the exec’s & not your customers. And who said to keep it at 4 min???? What the hell can you accomplish in 4 min. 1 min per wine???? Tell them to go sharpen their pencils.
    Stay real ;o

27. July 25, 2006

    Sam Zen

    Back and better than ever! Great to see! Gary, we’ve been brutally honest with you and it’s great that you can ditto that back. BTW- viseo blogging is FOR SURE going to blow away any tv show that you could’ve done. In fact, video blogging is ALREADY surpassing traditional tv. It;s just a matter of time (and not too much time) before advertisers get on that band wagon. Tis is just a fact. Like I said since day one, WLTv is a revolution! Keep up the honest work Gary.

28. July 25, 2006

    G-Rod

    Gary,
    Great show. WL-TV is and should be a service not a show. You are doing the industry and us comsumers a service by being so truthfull. Your store is built on credabality. Keep up the good work. And let me know what went down recently.

29. July 25, 2006

    GeneV

    Wow–talk about no holds barred! Nevertheless, I agree about Rosemount. If one likes mass produced Aussie red, you can spend less on Yellowtail.

    It looks like you came back from Spain to a rough summer. My apologies if the comments about hype have in any way contributed to taking the joy out of this project. It doesn’t look like you were having much fun, but then perhaps it is just hard to have fun with bad wine.

30. July 25, 2006

    garyv

    GENEV are you kidding? I love the comments, keep em coming! I want to make WLTV the best it can be. I will answer all the questions I can today!

31. July 25, 2006

    kevin

    yeah, if this were done through a network it wouldn’t e worth crap….they would own you and tell you what to review and how to review it….v-blogs are the way to go! and besides, perhaps some of these crap wines will get their act together if they see the gary v bus decided to run over them rather than stop to pick them up!

32. July 25, 2006

    kevin

    okay, i wrote my previous comment before the episode had ended….thank you for saying it! someone had to….fake wine blows….why don’t you review our friend Carlo…hahahah! yeah, that will be the day. oddly enough i think fake wines are what gets people into good wines….a lot of people can’t stomach a good wine with no wine drinking experience, but once they get used to the crappy ones, then try a good one, they see the light….so they do serve a purpose….oh yeah, and they are good for people who don’t like wine, but like to think they do! anyway, i would say go with the gut gary…execs do know some things, but at the same time a v-blog under 4 minutes is rather useless…unless you are only reviewing 1 wine….i mean, if i wanted something under 4 minutes i would just read a RP review….i like hearing the stories that go along with the wine….you are just as interesting as the wine and i think you are the main reason people tune in…

33. July 25, 2006

    joe

    Gary,

    Do you mean all of Rosemounts wines we should stay away from, forever….or just the low price basic swill? I bought a case of 1997 Rosemount GSM MacLaren Vale from the wine library back in 2000. It was really good – I have 2 bottles left – it aged nicely. Also some 1995 and 1998 Rosemount Show Researve, with a ton of medals – that was great. Can you claryfy – are these more pricy hi-end Rosemounts bad?? Should we never buy any Rosemount?
    Joe

34. July 25, 2006

    garyv

    Joe just the Diamond 2004 shiraz really, but most of their efforts undewr $10 have been below average for awhile now.

35. July 25, 2006

    Linda Prior

    I ABSOLUTELY LOVE YOUR HONESTY AND STYLE. I never did like Rosemont. You make me laugh and I trust your opinions enough to try new wines. Thanks for being yourself and not a wine SNOB.

36. July 25, 2006

    jsmith

    Love the candor. I mean really, why should you worry about irritating wineries that release subpar products. If they want nice reviews they will simply have to create a solid, value wines.

    Keep the reviews coming, Gary!

37. July 25, 2006

    PeterT

    If you ended up recommending wines similar to what the Network “personalities” currently do it would clearly compromise what uniquely differentiates you in the marketplace; your integrity and ability to share your CANDID opinion about specific wines. Even though there may be certain risks associated with it, stick with cutting edge format!

38. July 25, 2006

    John Coyne

    Welcome back.I’ve been discussing your blog with friends for some time now, and I was concerned with you having winemakers on yout blog. Not good IMO. Since you declined the TV offers, I predict TV will find someone with phony or weak credentials to do the show. Please send me an e-mail about what happened. Just tell it like it is baby!

39. July 25, 2006

    Bill

    Just supporting what Gary said (you might have missed it) about Rosemount’s upper priced wines. These are TOTALLY a different kettle of fish, and the Show Reserve line, the Balmoral, the Traditional, the GSM, are all fine wines. Even the Hill of Gold (a bit further down the food chain) can be decent. The pity is these people clearly know a decent product, which makes the quality of the diamond label etc all the more inexcusable.

40. July 25, 2006

    Buddy

    Gary, How about a wine related message board. It seems wine access has shut down.

41. July 25, 2006

    Paul

    Gary,
    This episode actually put a smile on my face, well actually i LOL. Good job in being honest because those wines do SUCK.
    keep up the great work.

42. July 26, 2006

    Leonard deOliveira

    Gary,
    Welcome back, what can I say that hasn’t been said already…just loved it…finally being absolutely honest on TV and saying it just like we wopuld say it …keep up the good work, don’t change a thing…being honest about those wines will bring you more people following what you have to say verse being polite…if the wine is good, it doesn’t need anyone giving a rating..just truth…the wine will speak for itself and the rest of us can love it or not. Interesting to say the lease… everyone who follows you or watches is probably wondering what’s up? No matter what, it was one of your better reviews…sounded just like what I would say when tasting those wines…

    Len

43. July 26, 2006

    eugene

    Thank you, Gary.

    And I second Buddy’s comment.

44. July 27, 2006

    Joseph

    Gary,

    I liked your episodes before, but after this episode, I am just HOOKED! As a person that has just begun to venture into wines and loving it since April, I appreciate having someone like you telling it LIKE it is about wine. Gotta FIGHT the politically correctness and BE HONEST. If it sucks, it SUCKS!

    Joe

45. July 27, 2006

    Josh Agrons

    Gary
    I am new to your site and to Wine Library TV. I am impressed. I expected sycophancy; I got candor instead–in spades. For those of us suffering through overly exuberant wine reviews from Wine Spectator or various retailers, your program is a delightful change. Keep it up, and I’ll keep coming back.

    Josh

46. July 27, 2006

    Doug

    Excellent Gary, this was a laugh-out-loud episode. Keep ‘em coming!

47. August 3, 2006

    Italian Stallion

    Gary, this is what I am talking about. Total honesty is greatly appreciated. I find your videos to be not only useful in my quest for the best wines, but also entertaining. Is it possible in the future to do a show on the big Napa Cabs….Mondavi Reserve, Caymus special selection, Dominus, Cakebread, shaefer, opus…etc. I know these wines are expensive, but these are “classic” wines, and I do say that term loosely. Just a suggestion

48. September 25, 2006

    Brandon M

    I cant’ beleive that “Execs” try to tell you how many minutes each episode should be. Some people.

    I do enjoy the brutally honest Gary! I think you should taste even more mainstream wines to de-bunk some of the beliefs that people have about what good wine is.

    I had three blind moose merlot this weekend and trully had to choke it down (I was being curtious)

    B

49. October 6, 2006

    Bear Down

    Gary,

    I just watched this one. Great episode! Anyone who ever doubts your honesty, or tries to refer to you as a salesman should check out #57 (Olin Kreutz) j/k.

50. January 31, 2007

    dadobs

    Silly to post anything months after the episode came out, but I’m a lurker trying to catch up on early episodes and thought I’d add my two cents.

    First, Harvey Steiman, Wine Spectator’s Aussie expert, discussed the Rosemount quality issues in his Jan 26, 2007 WS blog and provides some interesting insights.

    Second, the GSM (and some other Rosemount) bottling(s) is still a solid buy in Aussie wine at $25 retail. Then again, the market’s being flooded by tons of great juice from the outstanding 2005 vintage and maybe even the GSM will be overshadowed by all the other stuff (Marquis and Co) coming in around $15-30.

    Lastly, it’s too bad Gary (and the rest of us) can’t find a bottle or two of the 1994 Rosemount Diamond Label shiraz. It was worth every one of its 90 points from Spectator. I bought a couple cases at $6/bottle, but they’re long gone. My buddy bought even more and is now on his last bottles but says the stuff is still drinking well. Too bad the Diamonds have lost so much of their…shine?…sparkle?…heart?

51. February 1, 2007

    Elliot

    You should have some Rage Against the Machine playing in the background of this episode. I love the passion!

52. February 20, 2007

    Mark Smith

    Gary,

    This will date me but just as ol’ “What’s his name” said, “We will serve no wine before it’s time.” We (your relatively new customers from Connecticut) will follow no wine critic who sells out to industry or mainstream media pressure. You haven’t. Well done. And we’ll be back.

    Mark S.

53. March 8, 2007

    Lars

    I’m glad SS Chris mentioned episodes 57 & 58 in the forums. Thanks for stickin’ with the vblog. Tough decision. Love the candor.

    Lars

54. March 11, 2007

    EricB

    I’ll second that! Go Gary!
    I can’t stand infomercial reviews. Thanks for keeping it real.

55. April 3, 2007

    pomole

    kudos to you on the big FU to the tv establishment. the web video will pay off in the long run if you market it right. keep up the good work.

56. June 13, 2007

    ktw

    wow – going thru all these back episodes of WLTV is a lot like watching those Telemundo soap operas – way to stick it to the MAN gv – props to you!

57. June 28, 2007

    David Canada

    I love pissed off and fired up Gary V!!!!!
    I have had the Jester before and it was maybe 84……just too over the top.
    Rosemount…..word on that buddy. Too many people spend way too much money on shitty wine like that.

58. August 28, 2007

    soyhead

    great episode. obviously something went down. lots of comments. is this a pivotal wltv point?

59. August 31, 2007

    WA Ambassador

    Australian wines… gooood, TV syndication… baaaad
    Thanks for sticking with us and keeping it real. This is way more valuable than what you could have offered on TV.

60. February 10, 2008

    The Fanjestic

    Ok so watching these straight through – this is the beginning of the new WLTV. Gary’s energy has picked up – the character that we all know and love in Gary is starting to shine through – what got into you Gary? I think the idea that a 7 minute episode is long is funny. Boy do would those exec’s be pissed now. Or maybe WLTV will have another big change soon – who knows?

61. March 17, 2008

    Kristen

    Yay GV for keepin it real!!!!! I’m so glad you didn’t go into syndication and could keep you’re unique tasting notes (”well this doesn’t suck”) on the table! I can’t imagine how many constraints there’d be if you went with the big wigs!

    And I think this episode is the cusp of the Gary to come, the one who tells us those painting-like descriptions of wine! Thanks GV, I’m so glad you stayed with vlogs.

62. May 17, 2008

    John D.

    Wow, this has to be a seminal episode. I’ve been going through the archives, one at a time from the beginning. This one rocks. I love pissed off and hardcore Gary. I imagine it was a tough decision at the time Gary, and I am so glad you stuck to your guns and flipped off the Man. Way to go. This is what folks like me need and crave. Enough of the elitist BS. We need honest, real advice. If something sucks and there’s something better, I want to hear it. Keep up the great work Gary and thank you!!!

63. June 8, 2008

    CJRice

    My palate tells me that network television sucks.

64. July 10, 2008

    Dan Leavy

    good episode to return with, you seemed much more comfortable.

    word 57 “the”

65. March 30, 2009

    dcpatton

    Awesome decision Gary! I think this was really when we all got hooked and WLTV took off! Bring the Thunder!

66. September 14, 2009

    John J.

    Could not agree with you more Gary about the Rosemount. I don’t want to offend anyone, but Rosemount and those other mass marketed wines are a waste of time. The price you pay for those is not the quality of the wine, but the money they spend to mass-market that crap. There are far to many wines out there at that price or cheaper, which are way better values. Including that fruit driven, easy drinking style, and the more terroir driven, boutique style of wines from small producers. Surprised anyone would have wanted you to do a tasting on a wine like that. You can just google any of those mass marketed wines and get 1,000 reviews on them. I come to you because you turn us on to the good wines and good values out there that you don’t here about at other places. Stuff that’s not gonna have 1000 sites come up with info on it, like those silly wines such as Rosemount.
    Which is why I really hope you get around to doing a charbono or vin jaune tasting. Very different wines, but underdogs in their own way.

67. November 21, 2009

    Andrew D

    Hey Gary

    Fantastic to watch this old episode that was obviously a turning point. I was thinking that the early editions of WLTV were a little soft. Looking back in hindsight it’s obvious you made the right decision. Fantastic.

    Oh and I agree about the Rosemont – worst winery in Australia!

    Cheers
    Andrew

Leave a Reply