I was just helping that wine merchant over the fence.

Update: Someone pointed out that preventing this kind of thing would require the exact same mutual cognizance between advertising and editorial that would be necessary to encourage this kind of thing.

Gastropoda has pointed out this sort of thing in the past, but oops,  yesterday's DI/DO did it again. Asimov's piece on second string vintages, including this graf

That’s fine with me. In the latest catalog from Sherry-Lehmann, you can buy a 2003 Saint-Julien from Léoville Barton (a vintage rated 95 by Robert M. Parker Jr.) for $160. No thank you. But I would consider the 2001 Léoville Barton for $75. Why the discrepancy? Mr. Parker awarded 2001 only 88 points, even though he gave the individual bottles 95 for the ’03 and 92 for the ’01. In this case, I prefer the ’01 vintage to the ’03.

appeared opposite a full page ad for, you guessed it, Sherry-Lehman. The folks at Sherry-Lehman do not have input on editorial, but it creates a disagreeable impression that they do. There is impropriety, and the appearance of impropriety, and both can damage credibility. S-L and Zachy's appear to be two of the larger players in wine retailing in New York, and both advertise in DI/DO more often than not, and one could not cover retail wine without reference to them, but doesn't someone have a job to prevent these kinds of embarrassments?