NEWS
Return
to archived news contents page
Return to
Grape home page
|
Shiraz on the move 20 July 2007 The Shiraz Challenge results announced
‘It doesn't travel very well, does it?’ This spectacularly undiplomatic comment was made by Prince Philip, husband of England's Queen Elizabeth, well known for his both feet-in-the-mouth moments. On this occasion he was appraising a then-Rhodesian wine made in Marondera, a short distance from where he was standing. It's likely that Dave Robins, Deputy Chairman of Pick 'n Pay, didn't realise how pertinent a quote he had made when he recounted the tale at yesterday's Awards lunch for Wine magazine's Shiraz Challenge. From this year Pick 'n Pay have taken over sponsorship of the competition. Pertinent in that the winner, Bon Courage Inkara Syrah 2005, comes from `over the mountain', if one looks at it from a vino-centric point of view with Stellenbosch the hub and Robertson somewhere out on the radius of the circle. And from a Cape Town perspective, where the lunch was held, I can confirm the Bon Courage travels just fine. Even more to the point were panel Chairman, Michael Fridjhon's comments on the state of shiraz in South Africa, which he correctly introduced as a ‘not uncontroversial category'. After reminding the audience of how shiraz was characterised in the bad old virused vines days - sweaty saddles and the like - he compared today's virus-free plantings with a hypothetical, totally new variety which shows much promise but about whose site or stylistic preferences little is known. ‘The very versatility of shiraz means there's still so much to discover; we should remain open minded,' Fridjhon urged. Advice the Challenge judges took to heart for the most part - those serial non show performers, The Foundry and Columella again failed to attract favourable attention. Looking at the top 15 which scored four or four and a half stars, there is indeed a wealth of styles represented across a broad spread of origins. Acknowledged syrah stars Boekenhoutskloof and its little brother Porcupine Ridge, as well as the Trophy Wine Show trophy winner, Quoin Rock. are there, all crafted with a more traditional, European aesthetic in mind. Joostenberg Shiraz Viognier can be described as elegant-modern; with a little more oomph, so can Fairview, Saronsberg Provenance and Brampton is heading in that direction from a fruit-driven base. The Bon Courage possibly fits in here - modern with lovely pure fruit (from still youthful vines), careful oaking but a whack of detracting alcohol (15%). Showstoppers at various levels of power come in the shape of Cloof Crucible, Hartenberg The Stork, Koelfontein and Lomond Conebush (the last a new wine from Distell's Cape Agulhas vineyards). I'm not familiar with the rest but from Platter notes, the Savanha sounds more of an easy-drinker, the Woolies suggests a showstopper, as was the 2003 Boschrivier. As for areas, Wellington, Paarl, Tulbagh, Robertson, Darling, Ceres, Cape Agulhas, Overberg and Stellenbosch are all represented. While the results of the Shiraz Challenge will ensure blind tasting competitions and the variety can still take the Fridjhon label of ‘not uncontroversial' (what money on any of those lauded here receiving similar adulation at the Diner's Club Winemaker of the Year Award being judged later this year?), the grape does indeed appear to be positively on the move. — Angela Lloyd
The top ten in alphabetical order: • Full results are available on the WIne magazine website
|
|
COMMENTS From Clive Sindelman: It would indeed be a great idea, Clive, but sadly not on for the forseeable future. Couldn’t you perhaps organise such a tasting in Johannesburg, and let us know what happens? Although it would be good to have the same Wine panel tasting say, their original top ten together with some of these classy two-star wines. I’d be willing to bet – given that these are good tasters – that in a smaller line-up they would get rather different results from what happens in the near-lottery conditions of a huge line-up. (I’d also be willing to bet that those tasters will not be rushing off to swop their bottles of Columella, De Trafford, Foundry, Fairview Jakkalsfontein et al for bottles of Savanha, or even Inkara… — TJ
From Mark:
|
|
Response
from Fiona McDonald, Editor of Wine magazine: It's becoming more and more difficult to be comprehensive because of the growth of the various categories. Our tasters are now being asked to give up two mornings for larger category tastings and the request from them is that we restrict the number of wines to between 50 and 60 wines at a time. So if there are more than 120 wines to a category it becomes a problem... What we then attempt to do is to provide "mini category reviews" in our monthly additional assessments tasting. You'll note that we always have a minimum of at least six wines of the same type assessed. Wine is very dependent on the goodwill of the producers - and we're grateful for their continued support, as (hopefully) our readers are for bringing them this "warts n all" assessment. Hope that provides some clarity.
|
|
The following question was originally put in connection with a different
thread, but it seems appropriate to have it here:
From Sam Feerly: |
|
Rather than jumping to unfounded conclusions, visitors to the Grape website might like to inform themselves how the fifteen wines to rate 4 Stars or better in the 2007 Pick ‘n Pay Wine magazine Shiraz Challenge did in the Old Mutual Trophy Wine Show 2007. • Bon Courage Inkará 2005 won the Challenge, while its 2004 featured in the TWS, failing to get a medal. • Boekenhoutskloof Syrah 2004 and the cellar’s second label Porcupine Ridge Syrah 2005 both rated 4 Stars in the Challenge but were not entered in the TWS. Winemaker Marc Kent has a policy of not entering his wines in any competition, despite the fact that he has seen fit to participate as a judge at the TWS in the past. • Cloof Crucible Shiraz 2004 rated 4½ Stars in the Challenge and was not entered in the TWS, although the farm did enter its bigger volume The Very Sexy Shiraz 2004. • Hartenberg The Stork Shiraz 2004 rated 4 Stars in the Challenge, while the 2003 vintage was entered in the TWS and received a silver medal. • Quoin Rock Simonsberg Syrah 2005 rated 4 Stars in the Challenge, and was best in class at the TWS. • Fairview 2005 rated 4 Stars in the Challenge but was not entered in the TWS, although the more prestigious The Beacon 2003 and JakkalsFontein 2003 from this producer were put forward though they failed to get a medal. • A further three wines to be rated 4 Stars in the Challenge were also entered in the TWS but did not receive a medal. These were Brampton 2005, Saronsberg Provenance 2005 and Lomond Conebush Syrah 2005. • Just another five of the wines in the top fifteen in the Challenge did not feature at all in the TWS and these were Boschrivier 2004, Darling Cellars Reserve 2004 from Woolworths, Koelfontein 2005, Joostenberg Shiraz Viognier 2004 and Savanha 2005 from Spier.
|
|
From Phil Catchpole: Methinks Mr. Eedes Jr. (Wine publisher's sprog), doth protest too much. From a consumer point of view, the fact that the bog standard Columella was the best rated Wine Spectator SA wine ever is somewhat confusing. And can we finally have an assurance that the chairman of judges is not commercially involved with Quoin Rock? His Backsberg connections certainly throw the Ropey Show's Best White into question.• A few ex-editor points of information: It was, of course, a different vintage (2005) that got the high Spectator rating (I don't know if they rated the 2004 also). I believe that there is a declaration of interests lodged with the auditors of the Trophy Wine Show and it reflects Michael Fridjhon's relationship with Backsberg, and reflects that there is no commercial relationship to Quoin Rock. The judging of the TWS is pretty closely monitored, and I think it fair to say that it would be virtually impossible for there to be any underhand manipulation of results, even if that were wanted - or for the chair to know the identities of the wines being tasted (and I can't imagine that anyone would claim to confidently recognise an individual chardonnay in a line-up of 100 or so.) If the results could be manipulated by those with an interest in them, I'd guess the final list would have fewer embarrassments in it than it does!
|
|
At least two producers I know of were phoned by the advertising department and told that that had done ‘very well’ in the Shiraz Challenge and encourage to to take out an advertisement? What did ‘very well’ mean? Couldn’t say. But at least one of the producers pushed things and was eventually told that they’d got two-and-a-half stars....
Two
morals here. 1. Wine magazine will tell any fibs to get
advertising because that’s really what loving wine is all about,
isn’t it? Two-and-a-half stars is not ‘very good’ to normal people.
2. Once a magazine starts scrounging for advertising like this it’s
time to worry. What does it mean to the publishers if certain
producers start advertising if they do well? Are they likely to make
sure those producers get good ratings? O no, of course not! Or is
the winery just likely to get a nice little story in the trashy
magazine? But, puhleeze don’t tell us there’s no connection between
the editorial and advertising departments. This little story, which
I know for a fact, says otherwise.
Selling advertisement space is part of our business, it’s what we do… Are we any different to Good Taste, Winelands, Fynproe or Winelands Living? We don’t have the same leverage that the Wine of the Month Club has, for example, in exhorting producers to advertise in Good Taste on the back of a good rating – and a potential multiple thousand rand wine purchase by the Club. It would be naïve for anyone to think there was no interaction between the advertising and editorial departments. It’s up to our ad sales staff to sell advertisement space so we liaise closely, even including them in our story meetings so that they know exactly what angle we’re taking. I do take issue with the allegation that they “tell fibs”. Any person selling advertising is going to make the proposition as appealing as possible, often referred to as “sales puffery”. When electing one brand of washing powder over another, is the selection REALLY based on the premise that it’ll make whites whiter? Here are the facts: 189 wines were tasted for the Shiraz Challenge, 20 rated 1 Star, 48 rated 2 Stars, 40 rated 2,5 Stars, 51 rated 3 Stars, 9 rated 3,5 Stars, 13 rated 4 Stars and 2 rated 4,5 Stars, with six wines failing to rate anything. Wine considers 2,5 Star rated wines to be “Appealing” with the next quality level being “Good to very good. Fine character”. Wine advertising sales staff are NOT shown the full auditor’s report. They are given potential sales leads – but this applies ONLY to producers rated 3,5 Stars and above. I must specify that they do not know whether these producers have rated 3,5 Stars, 4 Stars, 4,5 Stars or 5 Stars. They are merely told that these producers have “done well”. I thus find it hard to believe that our ad sales staff could have provided specific information about ratings. Regarding the inference that advertising in Wine magazine could potentially lead to a “good rating” – I state, once again, that our tastings are conducted blind by a panel of five individuals and the proceedings are audited. Much as editorial would like to prevent the occasional 1 Star rating being awarded to wines like Columella, Kanonkop and Boekenhoutskloof, for example and our being held up to mockery in forums such as this, we can’t (and don’t) interfere. Our auditors PriceWaterhouseCooper ensure there’s no skullduggery or manipulation of results. That Wine magazine is “trashy” is your perception. We believe we are a quality product and to be featured in our pages means something. Feedback from producers, individuals and particularly restaurants is that Wine magazine packs a punch in terms of raising awareness of them and their business.
|
|
JC Swart: I am involved (apart from lecturing in Medical Biosciences) in the marketing of one of the fastest growing estate brands in SA - whose name I won't mention (for the same reason as that of the 'cynical producer'). May I just say in the past few months since our first products have been released onto the SA market, we were twice contacted by Wine's advertising department telling us that we have done well in Wine tastings. And both times the advertisement was well worth while! Other times we scored 3 stars and were not contacted - like in the Shiraz Challenge of 2007. Mmmm.... makes you think? May I also say that I tried my best and bargained with placing even full page ads each time they phoned me up, if they could only tell me what the rating was. The last time this happened, the sales staff member informed me that she will return my call in half an hour, but that she (as Fiona states in her reply) was only told by the editorial staff that we have done well. This half an hour was to suss out further details, but with no luck, telling me upon her return phone call that she was sorry she can't tell me anything else, seeing that the editorial staff does not want to inform her of ratings for sales and that she was only allowed to say we did very well and if we would be interested, this would be a good issue to advertise. This, of course, places the risk in full hands of that of the producer, but then again - this is your risk! It is the same as putting your wines up for rating in the annual Platter guide - it is your risk! And please stop barging at Wine for being inconsistent with tastings - any bit of a prick with some wine knowledge knows that palates differ from person to person and from day to day within the same person. Accusing them of any inconsistency is the same as accusing Veritas for giving Tokara's Zondernaam Sauvignon Blanc 2006 a bronze medal but in Platter's it scores 4-stars and other bronze winners scoring two or two and a half stars for their Sauvignons in Platter, or the Ernie Els 2004 estate blend scoring 5-stars in Platter, but the IWC only awards it bronze?! Is it difference in palates, inconsistency, or maybe even subjectivity....? Give Wine and Fiona a break please!! They are doing great stuff for wine producers of all likes and sizes - and YES! I have also had my differences in opinion with them, like with Wine of the Month and like with Platter's - but puhleeze! Put on your nappies and go cry in the corner - I anyway can't believe that anyone would be phoned for a 2 and a half star Shiraz to advertise if there are so many wines that did so much better than that. Fiona tries to uplift every producer over a wide spectrum of wines and history as far as she can - stop picking on wine raters and writers and swallow your sour grapes!
From Gert:
From Deepersouth: This is called ‘selling off diary’. It is forbidden at the newspaper I work for on the grounds that it creates too much risk that advertising concerns will interfere with editorial decisions. We don't call this naive, we call it ethics. When the advertising people complain, as inevitably they do, we suggest they explain to their clients that advertising that appears in a credible environment will be more effective than advertising in a medium where the judgement of editorial staff is perceived to be for sale. To be sure, what we do is serious - politics, business, and all that tough stuff - but I'd like the editor of a wine magazine to take wine as seriously as we take the news. That clearly is not the Ramsay Son & Parker way. I'd rather pay to read Jancis on wine I'll probably never drink, and stick to Grape for matters closer to home.
|
|
|
