|
| |
The Widow's
sour
grapes
•
Back to
Widow's contents pages
|
Contributing to costs
17 April 2007
An admission, and some
Norrishment for scandal-mongers – if
not for persecution maniacs
GO STRAIGHT TO LATEST
COMMENTS
My dear husband
knew that I am someone who is willing to admit having made a mistake. I did
it, after all, whenever the question of our marriage came up. Now I have to
tell you that I was quite wrong when I expressed
my suspicion that the Cape Winemakers Guild would wriggle out of their
policy of chucking anyone who didn't make the cut for the auction for three
successive years. In fact, it's happened. Unannounced, dear Ross Gower has
disappeared from the list of members as silently and irrevocably as Trotsky
was airbrushed out of photos of the Russian Revolution. And now that it's
happened (presumably Ross was given a loaded pistol and left to do the job
himself, rather than being liquidated by the committee), I confess I'm
rather saddened – as well as chastened.
Writing for
reward
I mentioned in
my last little thought-offering how irritating I find the cultural cringe of
many local wine commentators. One of those who most eagerly picks up on what
the foreigners say is Neil Pendock (oh dear, I do – almost – promise not to
mention him or Michael Fridjhon again for a while; I know that not everyone
finds them as much fun as I do, even when they’re not taking swipes at one
another). Of course, Neil tends to make use of outsider judgement mostly as
just another stick to bash his local colleagues with. I do really wonder
what he expects those colleagues to do when it comes to judging wines.
They’re sneered at if they do it in blind tasting competitions, they’re
sneered at if they do it in sighted tastings for Platter. What’s left? Apart
from being Neil, which is probably the answer.
It was
interesting to see Neil respond on Winecoza to a query about
why he himself tastes on competitions when he thinks they’re a load of
rubbish. So that he can write about them, he says. I hear that he’s accepted
an invitation to go to Maastricht for the Concours Mondiale competition –
perhaps he’s hoping to start building a bit of an international profile, but
I wonder if he’s told the organisers that he’s likely to scoff at the
results (or will he? it seems that he’s much nicer about the competitions
that include him than about those that don’t).
Presumably the
sort of anodyne comment on Neil's page in the Sunday Times
Travel and Food supplement is his ideal of wine criticism. One such piece,
by a guest writer, has a rather shady story attached to it. Word has it that
Mark Norrish, an important buyer for Picardi-Rebel, also thought highly of
the few words he contributed on a wine from a well-known producer.
Apparently, Mark found it appropriate to ask that the producer should make
a ‘contribution’ to the ‘costs’ of the ‘article’ he was writing. Costs? Mark
must value his time, or the wear and tear on his computer, very highly, as
R2500 is what was suggested as appropriate recompense.
In this case
the producer declined to pay up. Let’s wish that all our producers had this
sort of integrity when it comes to paying for a bit of publicity. And let’s
hope that this sort of demand is not made too often in relation to printed
recommendations. And do let’s also hope there are no such contributions
requested when Mark is delivering his opinions on what wines Picardi-Rebel
should carry. More recent talk has it that he’s now asking for
contributions from wineries towards his next overseas trip – but no-one
could possibly believe that suchlike things happen in our nice industry….
Does Neil
approve of others attempting to rake in fees for what they write on his
page? I’d have thought not, as he’s such a stickler for rectitude. Yet he,
normally so quick to pounce on others, hasn’t written anything about this
(which, yes, he certainly does know all about).
Incidentally,
Neil’s many other fans will be as sad as I to learn that he’ll no longer be
contributing a regular column to Wine mag. He and Mike have both got
the chop in the great cause of a new look. (I wait with some trepidation to
see what this editorial reworking will produce: in recent years the columns
were the only things generally worth reading – apart from the ratings when
one wanted a bit of a chuckle). It seems, however, that Neil has been going
round claiming to have been ‘fired’ by the magazine because of his noble
intransigence – I can think of some other reasons why he should have been
fired, but apparently he wasn’t. Is this a real persecution mania peeping
through, do you think, or just another revelation of a simpler form of
self-aggrandisement? |
|
COMMENTS
From Neil Pendock:
You really should get out more. The Sunday Times dropped its
Retailers' Recommendations a couple of months ago – something you would have
noticed if you read my columnette. You can draw your own conclusions.
On the subject of competitions, I make
both positive and negative comments on those I have been involved with and
am aware they provide a collective point of view as opposed to a definitive
judgment. As far as sneering at my colleagues goes, I'll leave that to you,
as you're much better at it than I am.
On the subject of Wine magazine and
their columns, I've just renewed my subscription and look forward to
contributing features to the relaunched magazine.
As far as persecution manias go, as Woody
Allen said ‘just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get
me'.
From Stephanie Ellis:
I am absolutely appalled by the behaviour of wine
journalists, including the writer of this article. You all behave like a
bunch of emotionally challenged individuals, forgetting that we want
information on wine, not the latest scrap in your tiny world. If this is
how wine journo's behave then you all deserve each other. Bloody pathetic!
From the Widow to Stephanie:
You're probably largely correct, my dear. I daresay most professions/jobs
have their little internecine wars which flare up occasionally – we have the
dubious advantage of being able to carry out ours in public, and it's not
usually a pretty or compelling sight. But there actually are real and
important issues at stake in some of these battles, which affect what
readers get to read.
From Riaan Smit:
I totally agree with Stephanie Ellis. Us
ordinary doppies want to know about wine. I am not interested in the Widow's
acidic observations, or childish skirmishes between Fridjhon and Pendock. It
is about as interesting (and mystifying) as malolactic fermentation. The
real issue is that while the industry is reportedly struggling (wine glut
locally and overseas etc.), I am still holding my Beyerskloof Pinotage
breath to read somewhere about any innovative marketing effort by local
producers to boost wine sales to South African screw tops like myself. It is
the industry's own fault that most people are intimidated by wine and
wine-speak. "Oh no, I am a winemaker and heaven forbid that I make a
beverage that can be widely enjoyed! I mean, this is an art, you
know." And while this is going on, over 50 wine properties around
Stellenbosch are on the market? Also, it is no surprise that Wine
magazine is relaunching/reformating. For one, the tasting notes are
definitely not written for ordinary people to understand: Tell me, for
example (from the latest April issue), a wine has a floral, or peppery, or
savoury, or cigar box, or citrus, etc. etc. nose/bouquet. I understand
that. Tell me the taste has overtones of plum, blackberry, coffee, leather,
chocolate, mint, butter etc. etc. I understand that. But for crying out
loud, what the hell is "black fruit", "red fruit", "dark fruit", "blackberry
forest fruit", "juicy fruit" (almost all fruit are juicy!), and my
personal favourite, "sweet red fruit", etc. You are welcome to call me
stupid. But then, who are you writing for? To whom are you hoping to sell
your magazine? Do you really think you can have a profitable magazine if you
do not consider screw tops like myself and continue to write for a few
thousand, mostly wine snobs? Do try.
From the Widow:
Note that there is more whingeing about me (with regard to WIne Spectator)
in Open Space. What mystifies
me, by the way, is why some people bother to read my little observations at
all; they have been much the same in tone for the last eight years or so
(gosh, I thought I was pretty old back then!). Please note that I'm never,
at this stage of my life, going to suddenly see the light. A good squabble
or insult from you is always welcome, but if you're wanting feelgood stories
and tasting notes, I think you should pass me by....
From Tiny:
C'mon you guys. The real problem here is this Norrish dude, and all the
others in powerful positions trying to rake in the cash from winemakers
desperate for publicity or sales. Are we so used to scandals we don't care
any more? What does Picardi say about their buyer asking wineries for money?
I'm told that Mr N has very recently left the employ of
Picardi – whether or not that is them saying something about it all, I can't
say. – Wid.
From an
insistently confused Riaan Smit again:
Well, dear Widow, seeing that you are so adept at cracking the
scandals/secrets of the industry, would you be so kind to reveal the secret
of 'black fruit' and 'red fruit' that crop up frequently in tasting notes.
Maybe it is all one big conspiracy to keep ignorant persons such as myself,
well totally ignorant – wouldn't that be lekker? On the other hand, nobody
else has tried to enlighten me after the above was written. So, either
nobody is reading this, or all those wine snobs out there who have
blissfully used these sophisticated descriptions don't know what they are
talking about. I suspect it is the latter. Well,
Riaan, those who know more about these things than I do have let me into the
secret, and apparently it's all very simple and modest: red fruit means
things like strawberries and raspberries, black fruits mean things like
blackcurrants and blackberries. Seems like they're sort of fruit-families. I
must say I'm as confused as you are generally about all the weird things
referred to in tasting notes. – Wid.
From Christian Eedes:
Regarding the issue of tasting notes, see my reply to the same Mr Smit on
the same matter posted in
Open Space in May
2006.
From Chris Williams:
Riaan Smit is right, wine tasting language is an imprecise, subjective means
of communicating what is a highly personal experience, but perhaps he would
prefer the following tasting note for his favourite tipple:
Appearance: Colour intensity= OD @520 nanometers with
hints of high ionization index around the rim.Turbidity of around 45 ntu
but precepitation of Potassium bi-tartrate and Flavan 3-ol methylquinone
residue evident in the glass
Nose: Initilly highly ethyl with lifted 3,7,Dimethyl
-1,7Octadien-3,6, diol, developing to C13-norisoprenoid glycosides with
just the slightest hint of alpha Amino-acetophenone and 4-Methoxy-2,5
dimethyl-3 furanone, but does betray traces of 4 Ethyl guaicol on the
end.
Palate: Highly aquaeous entry with hints of higher
Protocatechic benzoic acid supported by Trihydroxy-3-5-4'-stilben
resveratrol and trans-anydrous -cis glucoside. 3-Methylthioprpan-1-ol
acetate dominates the finish.
The point
is, some people enjoy or make their living by talking about wine. While
modern English may be less precise than organic chemistry, it is understood
by a greater audience and is therefore more usefull. Ancient Greek may be
the ideal means of discussing the philosophy of logic, but it will be a
pretty lonely conversation.
From Riaan Smit:
Thanks Tannie Wid! Your revelation of the code behind
"red fruit" and "black fruit" makes sense to me. I'll send you a bottle of
my home-brewed Pinotage as soon as it has completed its malolactic
fermentation. I think it has lots of black fruit overtones - no, make that
black forest fruit. It is in a 5th fill barrel (French, nogal) and I am sure
I will not be criticised for the overtly woody character of the end product.
An apology is due to Mr Eedes,
because I missed his reply in May 2006. I do understand that wine
appreciation has its own language. But my point is (and this is specifically
for Mr Williams, whose comment I find unnecessarily flippant for somebody of
his stature) to grow the wine market on which both Mr Eedes and Mr Williams
rely for a living, some attempt must be made to break down this nonsense
mystique around wine.
Mr Eedes can start by
publishing a note in his magazine to direct the uninitiated to Wine
magazine's website where they should be able to find general explanatory
notes on language used in tasting notes - such as 'black fruit' and 'red
fruit', what is tannin etc. etc.
Also, I cannot remember seeing
any reviews in Wine magazine about wine books - I may be wrong.
Thanks to Mr Williams's review (I think it is somewhere on the Grape website
[it is indeed]) of
Wine Science by Jamie Goode, I bought the book and found it to be an
excellent introduction to wine, if you are serious about learning more than
just about what is in the bottle. It was written by a scientist with an
exceptional gift for understandable language.
From Angela Lloyd:
I agree the terms `black fruit', `red fruit'
etc are vague and unhelpful. When writing tasting notes I try to
differentiate between soft fruits, eg raspberries, blackberries and
fruits with thicker skins, eg blackcurrants, plums. For the former I'd
use the word 'soft' with perhaps the addition of 'luscious' or `juicy'
and a further differentiation between red – generally brighter,
fresher aromas/flavours, and dark or black – more restrained, riper. For
the thicker skin fruits, there would be an element of higher acidity and
bite with a suggestion of tannin, though the same red/dark-black
descriptors apply. I often find redcurrants in pinotage (sorry, I know
they're a European fruit and am not sure what a local equivalent would
be). I hope this helps Riaan.
What he might equally bewail is the lack
of structural descriptors in tasting notes, they all appear to dwell on
aromas and flavours – structure is often more informative about a wine
than the subjectiveness of aromas and flavours.
From Cathy van Zyl:
And then there's stone fruit, summer fruit, tropical fruit, candied
fruit, jammy fruit, liqueur fruit ... and tomato!Anything except grapes, it seems.
— Wid
From Chris Williams:
Another element often ignored in tasting notes is texture, both for red
and white wine, and, at the risk of further complicating the issue, I
often describe these using examples from textiles, such as lacy, silky,
corduroy, powdery, chalky, satin, viscous, gravelly etc. Pinot Gris is
quite an aromatically neutral variety, but is very often distinguishable
by the quite unique flossy, gravelly texture, unusual for a white wine,
and Pinot Blanc has an oiliness on the palate which sets it apart, for
me anyway.
From Francois
Koegelenberg:
Please allow me the opportunity to say a few words about Mark
Norrish.The less said about the anonymous attack on Mark, the better.
Mark has been in the industry for a long time, both in the retail and
serving on many tasting panels.His passion for wine is unsurpassed and
he has worked incredibly hard to establish a wine culture. Plus he plays
a mean game of boules, always balanced by a glass of wine! Thing is, he
will always tell winemakers if he thinks their wine is not up to
scratch, and you can well imagine that he has made some enemies. So
sorry that they remain faceless. Everybody who knows Mark will tell you
that he is always willing to share his enormous knowledge and passion on
all wine related matters. Don’t we need
it in these
tough times?.So here’s to Mark, and like he always says: ‘Remember
life's a Cabernet!’
From
Kate Marshall:
Is it true that Mark Norrish is gone? Then I say yay! Nothing wrong with
giving one's opinion on wine, noting at all, but his greedy little hand has
become out of control! He does indeed ask for ludicrous contributions just
for having a wine on the shelf, shame on Mark, shame on you! More producers
should stand up to that sort of behaviour, name and shame people like Mark!
•
From
Vieilles Vignes:
This does seem like a tit for tat, too and fro, I am obviously in the dark
in this concern. But would it be possible for someone in the know to shed
some light on the Norrish affair? One supports the individual the next
rejoices at his exit? As far as I can follow the situation, he 'requested'
financial reward for various acts, product placements and written articles
etc. Also, if I am not mistaken he was paid a salary by Picardi-Rebel to do
just that; or were these 'payments' made in a position as a consultant apart
from his salary-paying Picardi position?Would it be possible for Mr.
Norrish to explain the confusion himself?
 From
Dave Ingram:
Ok so if Picardi want to charge a listing fee as Kate suggests why don't you
all be a bit proactive and boycott them. I for one do not buy from them and
will not in the future. If we don't like something / someone, boycott them.
Just be careful not to boycott on hearsay.
I believe
that all wines tasted on shows and panels should be paid for, as this in
itself is a backhander.
|
|
From
Mark Norrish:
I read the article on your web-site headed
‘Some Norrishment for scandal-mongers’ only on Friday 27th of April 2007. In
it Widow stated that I had found it “appropriate to ask that the producer
should make a ‘contribution’ to the ‘cost’ of the ‘article’ I (he) was
writing. Costs? Mark must value his time or the wear and tear on his
computer, very highly, as R2500 is what was suggested as appropriate
recompense” and “… in this case the producer declined to pay up.”
You did not have the courtesy of checking
the alleged facts with me before putting them into print. Clearly you
intended the allegations as a slur on my name. Indeed the insinuation is
that the money was be paid to me personally. Certainly this is the
suggestion if reference is [made] to a later part of the article which adds
that “contributions would be used towards my (his) next overseas trip.”
A defence you might have had would be that
the article was fair comment. Of course fairness requires you to check the
facts on both sides. This you failed to do. I wonder why?
The facts in point are that the company
employing me at the time had a stated policy that required wine producers to
recompense it for the time and effort put in by me in choosing and writing
about a particular wine and the producer is sent a Tax Invoice. I have
never received one cent for any such articles. The article you refer to was
in fact published before the producer declined to pay.
In regard to your reference to
“contributions to overseas trips” Picardi Rebel undertook various marketing
operations on behalf of wine sellers whose product they sell and I suggest
you refer to them directly. I have never asked for or received any money
personally for what you refer to as “the costs of his overseas trips”!
Finally you are at least right that I have
left the employ of Picardi Rebel, as of end March 2007. You queried “whether
that is them saying something about it all…” I wonder again why you didn’t
ask them directly? Or me? I can only suppose you don’t want to know the
truth!
Now that
you know the facts you may like to apologize if you are man enough to do so.
Or is it woman enough?
The Widow
replies:
Well Mark, it's a pity you didn't write sooner to demand apologies after
reading my little story on 27 April, as it is now 14 May, but still. As far
as I can see, you are confirming the fact that you (not a secretary or other
functionary of 'the company employing [you] at the time' - presumably
Picardi) asked for payment of R2500 for the few dozen words you wrote about
a wine. Oh yes, and for the effort expended in choosing it, of course.
Can you tell
us that at any stage the producer was informed that you were asking for
payment only on behalf of your company? (If you can, I will surely apologise
fulsomely for any possible personal insinuations, and make a few direct
criticisms of your employer.) Can you confirm, too, that the request
for payment was made telephonically by you in the first place, and that the
expression of your regret at the producer's unwillingness to pay up was made
in a personal email? I am wondering why there was no official invoice sent
in this case, as you state that this is the practice of 'the company'.
Given that
it was the company's 'stated policy' to require payment for the journalistic
work carried out by someone listed only as their wine buyer when suchlike
little pieces appear, presumably a number of producers have paid up in the
past (even though you haven't 'received one cent' for them. I'd love to know
which ones - won't you please tell us?
From Gert:
Picardi Rebel is known in the trade for their 'pay for everything' attitude.
Their trade allowances are very steep - but I suppose that's their right to
charge what they want to. However, refer to their so-called selections of
the month, that used to be printed in the Wine magazine and these days in
the lower-key Wine News publication. If you look at the wines 'selected' by
the taste masters or what ever they are called, you will see some very
interesting trends. Bad luck Mark – it's Picardi Rebel that should be
cornered.
From
Nigel Cattermole
Re your article / comments on Mark Norrish. First, as a someone who has done
business with Mark for many years I have found him to be a total
professional at all times, always honest and above board.
Second, the practice of retailers asking listing fees,
advertorial fees, rebates and all sorts of other 'financial' requests go on
every day at ALL major retailers. If anyone thinks this is a new practice
then they have been asleep for the past few decades. Every buyer for these
large groups is just carrying out the direction of the company that employs
them, it is the choice of the seller if they want to tread this path - no
one forces them at gunpoint! Whenever we have done business with MN it has
always been on a normal business footing - no strange deals!
From Dennis Walker:
I have been a good friend of Mark\'s for a long time and I found it very
disturbing that you could publish such defamatory, uncorroborated
accusations. I suggest that in future, you either do your homework before
making such statements or get a good lawyer. Some
more advice, the Web is a public place and your "Word has it" and "More
recent talk" followed by a defamatory accusation is in itself an admission
that your statements are uncorroborated. Yet you still have the audacity to
mention names. You could find yourself in a very expensive libel case.
|
|
CLICK HERE TO SEND US YOUR COMMENT |
|
