Kosie Moller! KWV. ok, thats out of the way, sawis clearly needs to look at things, I think, what is going on? 3 of the same wine, which already has limited numbers!!!!really, Wine, etc...

Tim's exposé opens a can of worms with far-reaching implications, including wine marketing ethics, the statutory regulatory framework, duties, taxes and the declaration of alcohol units, to just name those I can think of at the moment.

There are a number of important questions to ask of Kleine Zalze that urgently need honest and transparent answering.

The first is whether Kleine Zalze is trying to manipulate consumer perceptions by being parsimonious with the truth, i.e. that the wines they enter for competitions, both locally and abroad, constitute a very small percentage of the production going under that label without any form of differentiation to indicate the fact that there was a "show and competition bottling".  It is quite obvious that Kleine Zalze was keeping back "the best" to enter for competitions while selling "the bulk" both locally and internationally, something which is referred to in marketing parlance as bait-and-switch and a frowned upon strategy.

The second issue which should be more scary for Kleine Zalze is that through their crafty manipulation they have managed to effectively break the law while at the same time possibly implicating SAWIS, the wine certification body. 

Ross Sleet states that the challenge winner has an alcohol of 15.18%, therefore the back label should state either 15% or 15.5% alcohol according to the law if the wine is to be exported to the EU or UK.  The back label of the winning wine states that it is imported by Kleine Zalze c/o Wine Logistics, Antwerpen, Belgium and read together with all the international award stickers one would therefore deduce that this wine is exported and should abide by the .5% rule.  However, the back label states the alcohol as 14.5%, so somewhere somebody slipped up (enter SAWIS who should check the label when application is done for final certification).  So not only did Kleine Zalze neglect to update their website, but also to ensure that they abide by the rules of labelling and certification.

Expanding on the above, the back label gives an indication of alcohol units specifically for the UK market which is based on the declared alcohol of 14.5% and not the 15.18% as admitted by Ross Sleet.  Furthermore, the UK charges differentiated duties based on ABV (alcoholic strength) of wine and the rate goes up for wine with an ABV of more than 15%.  If this wine is therefore exported to the UK with a stated alcohol of 14.5% it would qualify for the lower rate of tax while what is in the bottle should actually be charged at a higher rate and effectively, by misstating the alcoholic strength, somebody along the way is evading some taxes.

Thirdly, and more worryingly, is the implication that this turn of events has on wine competitions and guides.  How is the consumer to know that the wines submitted to competitions and guides are the same as what the consumer gets to buy?  I see in the Platter guide that the Kleine Zalze Chenin Blanc Vineyard Selection 2008 was awarded 4 stars by Dave Swingler.  Which of the three bottlings did he get to taste, taking into consideration that the consumer is in no way informed that there were three different bottlings and it is pot-luck which one he / she may be buying?  I would hate to think that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and that the ratings given in Platter do not reflect what is available to the consumer.

So what's the verdict?

I believe that producers should differentiate between wines that are so completely different by, for example, calling it Vineyard Selection 1, 2 and 3 or Vineyard Selection with a date added to the label (as some Champagne producers do with a "degorgement" date).

Ultimately, however, producers should at all times endeavour to be open and honest, as consumers losing faith in what they are being exposed to (and I know a number of people falling in this category) will not do the industry any favours in the long run.

From Kobus Basson, MD Kleine Zalze Wines:

Dear Tim,

We welcome the debate on competitions and the rules set for competitions. Anything aimed at setting a fair playing field and enhancing the consumer’s confidence in wine competitions carries our support.

We consider ourselves to be a responsible producer who follows accepted winemaking practices and marketing norms. The integrity of our brand is paramount and, with that, our recognition of consumer loyalty and support.

We reply, without reservation, to the question posed by WC that we did not earmark any of the 2008 vintage Vineyard Selection Chenin Blanc for separate treatment, with a view of submitting any such wine for shows or competitions. The 2008 vintage Chenin Blanc was made in accordance with normal cellar practices, which included phased preparation and bottling of the wine. Any producer of bigger volumes of wine will confirm that the bottling of wine is determined, amongst other, by market demand, rate of sales, stock availability, bulk and barrel storage capacities, etcetera.

It is so that, for our 2008 vintage Chenin Blanc, the fermentation cycles of the grapes which we harvested were not synchronised. As stated in an earlier reply, our harvesting of the Chenin Blanc 2008 grapes was interrupted by rain. This eventually caused two separate vinification cycles. The bottom line is, however, that we followed what we considered to be best cellar practice for the grapes as received and were satisfied that the wine made out of the separate vinification cycles could be released under our “Vineyard Selection” range.

Any allegations or inferences that we followed anything other than appropriate and best cellar practices is regretted.

In retrospect, and with the benefit of having considered the comments raised in the debate which has been opened, we will consider in future separately identifying wines of the same vintage, marketed under the same brand, which, through the vinification processes followed, may show substantially different characteristics or make-up. This will, however, pose a number of logistical challenges.

As far as the query raised with regard to the information contained on the back label of the particular wine is concerned, the back label, specifically the stated percentage of alcohol, complies with South African legislation. The fact that the label may make reference to an importer of the European Union does not necessarily mean that the wine will necessarily be exported to the EU. We adhere carefully to local requirements of any of our importers. Where necessary, details of alcohol levels in wine are amended on back labels by small stickers.

As further information, the import taxes payable on wine exported are determined based on the certification details of the wine issued by the Department of Agriculture (and not SAWIS) and not by what may be stated on the labels. The inference that we may have understated alcohol levels on back labels to facilitate payment of lower import duties is also unfounded and regretted.

Kind regards.

Kobus Basson

I can confirm that excise is paid from the numbers on the paperwork, not from the label.

But the practise to submit a special sample not representing normal quality (and not telling anybody) is pure fraud. Why didn't Kleine Zalze blend all three qualities and make it all the same?

Yes, it's old and widely spread, but so is murder - it doesn't make it right and it needs to stop. Different wine: different label, please.