Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: Give it a rest, Mr. Garvin

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on May 2, 2007 at 15:08:43

In Reply to: Re: Give it a rest, Mr. Garvin posted by John Atkinson on May 2, 2007 at 13:50:49:

"So why are you _still_ bringing this issue up, in an unrelated thread?"

Please refer above. I did not bring the issue of Gallo/Stereophile up in this thread. In addition, please note that I did not bring up the issue on the Stereophile cite either.

"It wasn't a cursory statement. It was a clear expression of the
_fact_ that Wes never received review samples of the Gallo speakers,
and _that_ was the reason Stereophile did not publish a review. Why
that wasn't the end of the matter when I first explained it you is
beyond my imagining"

Then allow me to explain. I presume that people who make their livelihood using the written word use precisely the words they mean to use. Wes says that he WILL review the speakers. I presume that meant he either had them in house, or that he had a committment from Gallo. I initially object because you, and now Mr. Hansen, argue that this not a reasonable interpretation on my part. Be that as it may, you have explained that Wes never had the speakers in his possession. I accept that now, and did when you first wrote it. What I did not accept was that Wes Philips, which, based upon his writings, seems an honorable man who writes what he means, is honest, and would not intentionally mislead anyone to believe he would review the speakers, when, in fact, he had no such committment and authorization to do so. I earn a living in which people can take to the bank representations I make, and I presume Wes has the same principle.

I presume that Wes used precise terms for a reason. This naturally leads me to believe that someone informed Wes that he would have a pair to review. If he did not get a pair, then someone pulled the rug from under him, unfairly I'd say, in that he publically reported that he would review them. I've never met Mr. Philips, but he does not strike me at the type of person that would report he will do something, and then not. If Gallo initially told him they would supply him a sample, and then elected not to, fine. That is all I would like know. You claim that the review process is transparent. What I cannot figure out is why Wes would say it is coming, not I think it is coming, it may come, I am trying to get a review pair, nada. Therefore, I presume he was given some assurances.

If Gallo pulled a switcheroo, then I would think that they should be taken to task in light of the fact they use a floweringly positive quote from Mr. Philips on their website to sell their product. Maybe they got their quote, and decided not to risk a less than favorable full review. Who knows? But an explanation as to what happened, as opposed to a simple "he never got one", may shed some light here. Certainly, there are differences between "they got lost in transit", and "Gallo decided not to submit samples after they indicated they would" provides more information than simply "they never sent them."

"Why you continue to insist that you are right is rather sad, in my
opinion."

Sorry to make you cry. I'll live. See above. I have no doubt that Gallo never sent samples. Why did Wes think he was getting them? Did Gallo tell him they would forward them? Did they then tell him, no dice?

"but Gallo felt a review in Stereophile would not be in their best
interest; why does it matter to you? Why does it matter enough, in
fact, that you keep bringing this matter up on multiple Internet
forums and implying that Stereophile has behaved in an underhanded
manner?"

Underhanded manner? Hardly, and I apologize if I have given you that impression. I am asking for some wheat. I'll give you the chaff. Facts, with my supposition, and what I would tell a jury: Wes likes them at CES. Wes "invites" them to his residence. Someone from Gallo, maybe Anthony Gallo himself, tell Wes that they will accommodate his request for a review sample, having supplied, it seems, a sample to every reviewer under the sun. Wes, in May, 2006, tells an interested reader (not me, suprise) that he will be reviewing them when he gets time to do so, still under the impression that Gallo will accomodate his request. Time comes. Gallo, maybe Anthony himself, changes his mind, and decides not to send a sample to Wes. Wes, who has gone out on something of a limb by publically telling a reader that he will review them, now has the proverbial rug pulled from under his feet. Gallo does not send review samples.

Wes confirmed the first two sentences, you the third. Problem is, everything in the middle is the important stuff. Why does it matter to me? I don't know. Maybe as a long time subscriber, I give two shits what Wes thinks about the speakers. I presume that you think I should, since his reviews appear in your magazine. Maybe I think that if a company has misled a reviewer, I, the reader and consumer, should know about this, particularly if the company is using a great quote from the slighted reviewer in its advertising to sell its product.

I think there may be misunderstandings on both ends. For the record, I do not think you or the magazine did anything underhanded, lied, or any such thing. Based upon the cursory facts as I know them to be, it appears Wes was duped. All I want is some of the wheat.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---