Are Platter ratings too high? 10 August 2007

A reader thinks Tim Atkin has a valid point

From Riaan Smit:
Ja, Emile, dis lekker om snaaks te wees [see the discussion on Tim Atkin's views on SA wine writers], but you unfortunately did not comment on a very important assertion of Mr Atkin: ‘Is it really true that more than 160 Cape Syrahs, 120 Cape Cabernet Sauvignons and 60 Merlots deserve such scores (4 or 5 stars in the Platter Guide)’.

I am not a wine expert, but I know enough to realise that Mr Atkin has a point with the above assertion. Our wine is certainly not of a standard to warrant those scores. This not only devalues the Platter Guide, but also the efforts of those producers who are genuinely striving to produce world class wines.

Many of the tasters for Platter also write about wine. This means that Mr Atkin may just have a point about the standard of local wine writing.

I find the deafening silence about his statement quoted above very disconcerting. I can only take it to mean that local wine writers and producers are living in a state of self deception if they award and believe those scores in Platter?

A response from Tim James: 

Mr Smit and Mr Atkin do indeed have aspects of a good case here, I would agree, and I'm really pleased to see the matter raised. (Here I’m writing as a Platter taster and a wine writer, though I’m not writing on behalf of the Guide or of SA wine writers, but purely in my individual capacity (as they say).

But frankly, it it is not much of a point with regard to the Platter ratings. Every publication has its own calibration. The toughest, in my experience, is that of the World of Fine Wine, which happily dishes out 16 points to wines like Romanée Conti, and 11 points (hardly a star in Platter) to some pretty fancy wines. It is a matter of scale, and I have to agree that Platter’s scale is, by most standards, over-generous.

Does that matter, really? I don’t think Platter is necessarily comparing its scale to that of Wine magazine, or the International Wine Competition – it is the internal calibration that is most important.

And frankly, the calibrations of tasters around the world is not a subject that bears a great deal of looking into. Just try it – and wonder when some top taster is tasting, say Château Pétrus – is she tasting it as ‘a merlot’ on an international scale, as ‘a Bordeaux wine’, or as ‘one of the great wines of the world’? She might give Pétrus the same rating in one context that she gives to a nice Chilean Merlot in another context. It happens – I promise. I bet even Mr Atkin could be shown as doing this.

One of the problems one finds as a Platter taster is that you might think a wine is worth, say, 3.5 stars. But you know that lots of other wines of that calibre are getting 4 stars. So you raise your example to four stars. Things get ratcheted upwards. It happens, and it has happened. I don’t think there’s much self-deception amongst the scorers – any more than we’re self-deceived when we spend a few hundred rands on Paul Sauer which cost a tiny fraction of that two decades ago. Inflation happens.

Many years back ( I can’t remember exactly) Platter realised that the ratings were too high for rationality, and readjusted. Personally, I think the time has come to do this again. There are undoubtedly too many wines crowiding the ‘red ink’ areas, and we need to start all over, with some reassessments , on a scale more commensurate with international standards. I also think that the ‘red ink’ is a problem, making anything less than four stars seem like also-rans.

These are my own (quite strongly held) opinions. It is all up to the editor and publisher of Platter, however. And I don’t think that it matters all that much if you treat the matter intelligently. I suggest that Mr Atkin and Mr Smit simply take a half star – or even a whole star - off everything, and Platter ratings will seem pretty reasonable, and the book will remain just as valuable or as useless as you found it before. We all need a sense of proportion, that’s all.

From Santie Swanepoel:
Another problem with Platter ratings is that they are awarded sighted by people who are directors of competing producers, consultants to producers, buyers of grapes and wines from their own brands, wine writers relying on industry largesse for their tasting samples/lunch/airfares. The whole system is very corrupt, but then I guess this is the New South Africa, after all.

From Poor Tom:
To be a star or not to be a star? Well one thing I personally hate/detest/loathe about the Guide, is the simple fact that once someone picks it up they are miraculously transformed into a vinous-supergod! It's a guide – not the gospel truth, but some folk don't understand that. Most are like pubescent boys paging through one of those ‘starry’ magazines. The Guide just highlights the lack of oneo-education amongst some wine drinkers; those folk who simply visit wineries to taste the stars (or ‘super-quaffers’) and nothing else. Sometimes (not always) the person offering the tasting might just have made the wine or was part of the wine-making process and just perhaps they know which wines might suit the visitor’s palate. It is rare, but not unheard of. The Guide is a guide,which expresses the Platter taster's valued opinion (which can sometimes mean the difference between profit and loss) of the wine and can be used as a tool for further exploration into the wonderful world of wine. Wine is made by the people, for the people. And I bet you that an enthusiastic and informative tasting is worth more than any guide or star. I do use the guide as reference tool - before I get lambasted as a Platter-hater!

From Dave:
Surely we are confusing quality and quantity. this may be a play on words but hear me out.

How many 5 star wine in platter are made in 100 000 case production runs? How many 1 star wines are made in 100 case batches? I am not saying that they are mutually exclusive  but when we get a Platter entry it is generally the smaller volume wines that are given the higher ratings. The bulk quaffers down the page are getting the lower ratings. This is not done intentionally, but I am pretty sure that in 95% of the entries this is true.

Where Platter falls down in my view is that it is reluctant to lower its ratings on a vintage basis.

When we get a Wine tasting and find  Columella getting a 2 star rating and Platter gives it 4.5, I tend to believe the Platter rating above the Wine one. I can't afford this wine but surely it can't be two star. Conversely a Savanaha 2005 in Platter gets 3 as an early easy drinking wine. Wine raves about it and gives it 4 stars.  I can afford this – I had a bottle last night and may even buy a case at the  price, but it’s not a 4 star. This is maybe where a 100 point score card would help (except that you don't get much below 70, so call it 30 points) – then we can get some real figures.  

Platter is consistent, albeit a bit high.

From winewriter Neil Pendock:
To be consistent with the rest of the Platter ratings, how about appending the initials of the tasters who voted for the five star wines this year?  Also the total number of yes votes would be nice.

From André van Rensburg (Vergelegen winemaker):
To all those who complain about the high Platter ratings:The Platter guide is no different to SA wine than James Halliday is to Aussie wine or Armin Diel to German wine.So please complain to Halliday about the high Aussie ratings -on average two stars to high! And, most importantly, taste differs – wine tasting is personal and unique and most definitely not absolute!