OPEN SPACE
Return to
Grape home page
Return to list of Open Space topics
|
Ageability 13 July 2007 Wondering how whites, reds and ports will keep
The following musing came in response to the Widow's latest offerings (which came in response to those of Tim Atkin and WIne mag), but the topic seemed too important to be left to her tender mercies.... From Naively Pro-Porto:
From Tim James:
|
|
From Port lover, Knysna: IS CORRUPTION FERMENTING…..? (This reminds me of the days when Axe Hill always got 4 or 4.5 stars when Tony Mossop was still on the panel. Axe Hill has scored 2.5 stars in the last two tastings. When the Platter results for 2007 were announced, Axe Hill did not get 5 stars, but by printing time they achieved that). I would like to see how Carel Nel scored the rest of the ports that was on the tasting. Maybe somebody should advise the auditors what to be on the lookout for. Secondly the Portuguese Ports that our Ports were scored against is of the poorest examples. If you are really serious about quality and learning, buy better Portuguese Ports, they are available. I have noticed that the same tasters go on year after year. And here they go again…is this really the same panel that will taste Port for the Young Wine Show AND Veritas??? I think we need some serious re-election. What about the other excellent Port makers, Port lovers and Wine Masters – give them a chance – you might be surprised. But for the moment I have come to the conclusion that there is definitely corruption fermenting in the Port tastings! Note from Tim James: I was most surprised to see the comment on Axe Hill in Platter, because it was never mentioned in press releases, nor in the list at the front of the book as having got 5 stars. But Port lover is quite correct that the 2004 is credited with five stars in the main entry, which is clearly a mistake. If the editor can be contacted while he is frantically working on the next issue, I will get his comments. Later: Philip van Zyl confirms that a regrettable mistake was made, and that the 2004 entry should have indicated that it got half a star less than five. The correct rating will be reflected in the forthcoming edition. From Susan Robinson: I'd love to hear comment from Wine magazine about this. Would they be prepared to re-publish the results of the tasting minus Carel Nel's scores on all the ports tasted?
|
|
Response from Fiona McDonald, Editor of Wine magazine: Wine is transparent in that the individual tasters' scores are printed below each tasting note or assessment. If anyone wants to do the exercise of seeing how leaving out Carel Nel's scores would affect his wines ratings, it's easy enough for them to do. We're also happy to supply anyone with similar information in respect of the other wines tasted. We state at the end of each report that the full audited report is available for scrutiny. We feel it's important to point out that Wine star ratings are awarded on the basis of discussion, rather than pure arithmetic. Ultimately any star rating is a panel decision. Regarding this being a 'small' category, more than 50 wines were tasted. There are far smaller categories assessed by WINE - Semillon or Viognier, for example. But regarding the criticism of having a producer judging on the panel
that's assessing a line-up of wines that includes his own, we don't
believe one person can skew the rating of the wine. We also cannot
ignore public perception, so Wine has taken a policy
decision going forward that all award/competition judging conducted by
the magazine in future will involve tasting panels that don't include
any of the winemakers whose wines are being assessed. Having said that,
please note that our annual review of the Port category is neither a
competition nor carries a Wine magazine award... The Peter
Schulz Excellence Awards are a SA Port Producers Association initiative,
sponsored by NMK Schulz, based on the results of Wine magazine's
annual review of the category. |
From Tobias Groenewald: Fiona, please stop telling fibs. Wine's Shiraz Challenge results do not reveal how individual judges scored. Could this be an attempt to save face by Fridjhon and Eedes who roundly rubbished Shiraz at the Toasty Show while the Challenge was much more liberal with its favours? |
|
Response from Fiona McDonald, Editor of Wine magazine: Mr Groenewald, if you think Messrs Fridjhon and Eedes are not prepared to stand by their scores or be held up for public scrutiny, you're wrong. As I explained to Angela Lloyd at last week's Pick n Pay Wine magazine Shiraz Challenge awards lunch (that was a message from the sponsors, in case anyone missed it...) the tasting assessments did not carry the individual judges scores because the final deliberation or judgement was done on the basis of a RANKING and discussion and not a purely arithmetical averaging. We like to learn from our mistakes and Wine wanted to prevent a replay of the Chenin Blanc Challenge fracas - where a "close-but-no-cigar" contender has taken it upon himself to use words to the effect of "the top-scoring wine in Wine magazine's annual Chenin Blanc Challenge" to promote his expensive offering... himself favouring the numbers over the judges final ranking decision. If anyone wants to see the numbers, they are welcome to pop along to our Pinelands office and examine the entire audited report. We offer all Wine readers that opportunity with every one of our tastings.
And in a final point, both Messrs Fridjhon and Eedes commented on the
difference between the Old Mutual Trophy Wine Show and Pick n Pay Wine
magazine Shiraz Challenge tastings being that for the first producers
had to enter and pay for their wines to be judged, while the second cost
them nothing. Wine magazine sources as many of the commercially
available shirazes as possible, which provides the judging panel with a
far more representative view of the category. |
|
From Sam Feerly: I love it. Fiona admits that Wine's best scoring shirazes didn't bother to enter the Toasty Show! Does the Toasty Show owner (= chairman of judges, Mr. Fridjhon), agree? |
|
From
Poor Tom: Dear Wine - buy a calculator they aren't expensive and even Parker can add up to 100. Didn't Enron rely on audited reports? Port is marvellous, if made correctly! - but SAPPA are like an old man without dentures - groot bek maar sonder tande! If they want to re-negotiate with the EU over the name ‘Port’ (which I hear they want to) they need to rid the entire SA Port industry of fortified ruby cab – sorry, Oporto Port as it's called! - and oxidised Ruby. As for Port tasting panels - could Wine please comment on why none of its esteemed staff attended the recent Port festival or SAPPA-organised port tasting class in Stellenbosch. The latter was specifically aimed at training port-people to judge port (proper port, not fortified ruby cab. I won't hold my breath for an honest response - sorry! |
|
I would also like to take up the issue of Wine magazine’s tasting results. Should anyone contend that our panel members are not sufficiently expert, I would make the observation that out of the 13 tasters credited in the 2007 Platter guide, six of them, namely Michael Fridjhon, Dave Hughes, Christine Rudman, Clive Torr, Cathy van Zyl (Grape regular) and Irina von Holdt are frequent tasters while Angela Lloyd (Grape regular), Ingrid Motteux (Grape regular) and Dave Swingler have certainly sat on a Wine magazine panel in their time. Even Grape editor Tim James once adjudicated at the Chenin Blanc Challenge, but admittedly that was back in 2003. As to why I was not present at this year’s Calitzdorp Port Festival, my schedule prevented me. If I was to be present at the first formal symposium of this event held at 10h00 on Friday 20 July, the only practical time to travel to Caltizdorp would have been on the preceding Thursday. As it was, I was compelled to attend both the 2007 Pick ‘n Pay Wine magazine Shiraz Challenge awards lunch as well as a late-afternoon launch of Meerlust Cabernet Sauvignon 2004 on that day. I did, however, attend all formal symposia at the Festival held in 2005.
|
