It’s been over a year since I reviewed “The Billionaire’s Vinegar” by Benjamin Wallace, and so when I learned about Michael Broadbent suing Random House for libel this week, I had to revisit my notes on this best-selling book. Although many details of the text remain a bit hazy, I certainly don’t see what the 82-year-old Broadbent stands to gain from this lawsuit, nor do I see how he can possibly win. From what I do recall, “The Billionaire’s Vinegar” seemed extremely well-researched and impeccably thorough. I would certainly recommend the book to anyone who has not yet read it.
Another thing that I remember about “The Billionaire’s Vinegar” is that Broadbent — although not complicit in any crime — definitely emerged as the story’s biggest loser. After all, a small portion of his most esteemed tasting notes had been compromised over the years, since several of these “rare” wines he sampled turned out to have extremely questionable provenance. I am only being honest when I acknowledge that I did feel a bit amused by the whole situation.
For similar reasons, I chuckled when “The Wine Spectator” was exposed for granting one of their “Awards of Excellence” to a non-existent Italian restaurant last year. Then, I felt a twinge of guilt when one of their editors commented on my blog, and it made me rethink my position, at least a little more deeply. Regardless, I believe that “The Wine Spectator” needed to be taken down a couple notches as well. From my perspective, this magazine exerts far too much influence on the wine industry, and having worked at a prominent winery that is at odds with this publication, I happen to believe that industry politics play a larger role than anyone might admit.
To be sure, it will be quite interesting to see what kind of direction wine journalism will take in the future, especially as wine continues to become more and more popular. I would like to think that Michael Broadbent and “The Wine Spectator” represent the old guard, and that new voices (lots of them) will eventually be heard. Time will tell. But in the meantime, although I can admire Broadbent’s fundamental passion for wine, the way I see it, through ego and over-exuberant hubris, he has brought most of this scandal upon himself.
This is a great blog. It only goes to prove that the book resulted in defamation of character, for which they are being sued. I do agree with you that the book is a good read, however, you’d have to be pretty informed to spot the hundreds of mistakes that insiders know of. The fact that, as a result of the book, you are dismissing a large section of my father’s tasting notes, where you claim provenance was questionable is sad. In the vast majority the notes, the provenance was well known, 99.99% was probably very clear. As to whether my father has a case or not is a good question. In America, libel laws are weak, in the U.K. there is clear libel, some of which the author has already agreed to remove from re-prints. But why sue? For a start, so that Will Smith doesn’t make the same errors when he makes the movie. Why sue so late? Well, he isn’t, it was only just made public but the lawyers have been on it since the book was for sale in the UK. Anyway, yes, my sense of humor appreciates yours, we all like to see the elite getting in trouble but only when justly deserved. In the case of my father, you can laugh but I don’t think you’ll have the last laugh!
Bartholomew Broadbent, http://www.facebook.com/broadbentselections
Well, now I feel guilty. I will mull this one over in the meantime. But, point taken, your father’s wine criticism does have provenance in nearly every instance — I was referring to the dubious rarities mentioned in the book. I could have worded that more clearly, and will make an edit tonight.
Thanks, also, to be fair, I should explain that my comment “hundreds of mistakes” is meant as a figure of speech, not purporting to be accurate. I do not know how many mistakes there are but they fill 20 pages of notes sent to me by my father. Anyway, please accept that as a figure of speech and I apologize to Ben.
Bartholomew Broadbent http://www.broadbent.com
My father has won his lawsuit
The press release reads:
The libel action centred on the book The Billionaire’s Vinegar, the subject of which was the provenance of a number of bottles of wine said to have been owned by Thomas Jefferson. The book made allegations which suggested that Mr Broadbent had behaved in an unprofessional manner in the way in which he had auctioned some of these bottles and that his relationship and dealings with Hardy Rodenstock, who discovered the original collection, was suspected of being improper.
In a statement read out in open court today, Random House apologised unreservedly for making the allegations and accepted that they were untrue. It has given an undertaking not to repeat the allegations and paid Mr Broadbent undisclosed damages.
Commenting on the settlement Sarah Webb, head of Russell Jones & Walker’s Defamation department, who acted for Mr Broadbent said:
“The Billionaire’s Vinegar made highly damaging claims about my client that seriously compromised both his professional and personal reputation. We are delighted that Random House has today accepted that these allegations are totally without foundation and avoided the need to proceed to a full trial. My client is relieved that the good name he has built up over many years as one of the country’s leading wine experts has been fully restored.”
Congratulations, and that shows you what I know about legal matters!