Wine Spectator Article - Bait & Switch?

[milky]

Has anyone else read this article on winespectator.com yet?
http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/44637

It's a little disappointing...
- that the 2nd blend was not appropriately declared to be so (I suppose if a smaller winery gets a wonderful accolade and decides to cash in on that, it is somewhat understandable, as such opportunities don't come often, but at the least declare that the latest release is a "different but similar" blend, selling the skills of the winemaker, instead of just pulling wool over eyes)
- that the person who leaked would do so directly to an overseas market that is impt for Australia wines (does he think that his own wines will be immune to any damage that this may have on all Aussie wines, considering that the typical US consumers seem to think all Aussie wines in the same broad brush stroke?)

Hopefully, there's no "mass hysteria" in the USA over this issue.
Aust wine producers/exporters are already facing tremendous pressures...

[Brucer]

Yes, its not good form at all.
Misleading, in the least.
I have a bottle of the 2010 and 2011 bottlings, and will compare them tonight.

[rens]

I'd be interested to see what your impressions are.

[Brucer]

I have had them both open for an hour or so.
The 2010 wine has assertive oak and orange peel. (Pretty much as Campbell Mattinson reviewed on TWF)
The 2011 has less prominent oak and is more rounded.
I actually prefer the 2011 for drinking tonight, but they could well be reversed as the oak mellows in the 2010.

[n4sir]

It's certainly an indicator of just how tough things are at the moment, but it's still very disappointing to think that Schild Estate would go down this rocky path - in the end it won't do their reputation much good, nor the rest of the Australian (fine) wine industry trying to shake its image of a bulk producer of cheap plonk, sourced from anywhere and everywhere and churned out of a big stainless steel factory.

That said, the practice is nothing particularly new either - there's always been whispers of "sexed-up" samples for the wine show circuit and critics for years, with the occasional and sometimes spectacular exposé's (Wither Hills, McGuigan, I also vaguely remember a story to do with Jeremy Oliver too). Then there are the huge-volume cheap exports of Yellowtail and the like that are churned out like this and make no excuses about what they are, but as I mentioned that's exactly the type of image many would like to distance themselves from.

After reading the story I went and checked my bottles purchased the last couple of months: I was impressed with the wine I tried at an instore late January, and surprised they were still available after the 94/100 Wine Spectator review - from the laser etched codes near the bottom of the bottles they look to be all from the final batch in 2010.

Cheers,
Ian

[Popov]

I bought a bottle of this last week and went back and bought another yesterday from the same batch of bottles from the same shop. Looking at my bottle it does not have "BBS" etched onto the bottles but does have the following: "1722 L0293" and a bit further around the bottle it has "AD5202100623".
Can someone tell me which batch this is from as it is not clear from the article with what is on my bottle. Both last week's and last nights bottles were very good and thoroughly enjoyed but not very good form from the winery as others have alluded to.

[KMP]

................Hopefully, there's no "mass hysteria" in the USA over this issue.
Aust wine producers/exporters are already facing tremendous pressures...

Over on eBob, Lisa Perrotti-Brown MW, who reviews Aussie wines for the Wine Advocate has stated "I think Schild's reputation will be badly affected by this and it should be. I don't want to review the wines anymore." It will be interesting to see if other US-based wine mags, or Aussie for that matter, take the same tack, esp as the extra 5000 cases seem to be for sale in Oz (Schild winemaker Scott Hazeldine told Wine Spectator when asked about the new bottling. "In order to get us through to a stage when the 2009 will be ready for bottling, I have been asked to put together an additional blend for sale in Australia.")

Schild has been a little hard to get in the US since their Shiraz was rated as a great value a few years ago. I've not had the 2008. Other vintages have been respectable but not anything I've wanted to hoard.

Mike

[n4sir]

I bought a bottle of this last week and went back and bought another yesterday from the same batch of bottles from the same shop. Looking at my bottle it does not have "BBS" etched onto the bottles but does have the following: "1722 L0293" and a bit further around the bottle it has "AD5202100623".
Can someone tell me which batch this is from as it is not clear from the article with what is on my bottle. Both last week's and last nights bottles were very good and thoroughly enjoyed but not very good form from the winery as others have alluded to.

I think I've highlighted the important bit - the story mentions the lock code begins with the year of bottling after the L (in this case 0 for 2010) - the story also mentions there were bottlings in November 2009, March 2010 & November 2010 of the original blend, whose codes should logically begin with a 9 or 0 immediately after the L, the new blend bottled 2011 would begin with a 1. It should be noted there's still a bit of discussion & some clarification to come about how many batches there were going by the following numbers of the etchings which are supposed to indicate the specific day of bottling (ie. 293rd day of the year) - what a mess.

................Hopefully, there's no "mass hysteria" in the USA over this issue.
Aust wine producers/exporters are already facing tremendous pressures...

Over on eBob, Lisa Perrotti-Brown MW, who reviews Aussie wines for the Wine Advocate has stated "I think Schild's reputation will be badly affected by this and it should be. I don't want to review the wines anymore." It will be interesting to see if other US-based wine mags, or Aussie for that matter, take the same tack, esp as the extra 5000 cases seem to be for sale in Oz (Schild winemaker Scott Hazeldine told Wine Spectator when asked about the new bottling. "In order to get us through to a stage when the 2009 will be ready for bottling, I have been asked to put together an additional blend for sale in Australia.")

Schild has been a little hard to get in the US since their Shiraz was rated as a great value a few years ago. I've not had the 2008. Other vintages have been respectable but not anything I've wanted to hoard.

Mike

As I said, it's a very questionable move by Schild Estate despite their assurances that the new blend wasn't intended for the US market - I think Australians should be just as pissed off that they're being sold a hastily put together imposter to continue to cash in on the reputation of the "real McCoy" still being sold overseas, especially as it appears that the "2nd blend" label was only added after this story was investigated. Lisa Perotti-Brown's comment should be seen as a genuine warning to anyone else in the industry if they go down this path.

Cheers,
Ian

[DaveB]

Utter stupidity from Schild....utter douchebaggery from Two Hands....utter disaster for how Australian wine is perceived in the U.S. (again)....congrats to all concerned

[chillwrx]

I agree - Twelftree supporting the aussie wine industry again. Douchebagery? Verry good

[Rudy]

Utter stupidity from Schild....utter douchebaggery from Two Hands....utter disaster for how Australian wine is perceived in the U.S. (again)....congrats to all concerned

Post of the year

[Gary W]

A great look for Australia - oh, we've run out of this wine, lets make some more......from somewhere.
Here is the press release from the winery for the record.
----
16 March 2011
CLARIFICATION OF RECENT BOTTLINGS OF
SCHILD ESTATE 2008 BAROSSA SHIRAZ
A recent article published on the website of US wine magazine Wine Spectator has called the
provenance of a Schild Estate wine into question.
In November last year, the 2008 Schild Estate Barossa Shiraz was awarded 94 points and placed
at number seven in Wine Spectator’s Top 10 Wines of 2010. Due to the unprecedented sales
generated in the US by this high award, a decision was made by Schild Estate Wines to
reallocate the majority of the 2008 Barossa Shiraz production to the US market.
The 2008 Barossa Shiraz was sourced entirely from Schild‐owned vineyards, and with the 2009
wine months away from readiness, a second blend was carefully sourced from neighbouring
vineyards to create a stop‐gap product for the domestic Australian market. To avoid any
confusion in the marketplace, an extra strip label has been positioned on the front of each
bottle clearly stating ‘2nd Blend’.
“The intention was never to mislead consumers, and it’s very regretful that this
misunderstanding has arisen,” said Schild Estate Wines General Manager Casey Mohr. “The ‘2nd
Blend’ 2008 Barossa Shiraz was meticulously crafted to be as close to the original wine as
possible, but it is visibly labelled as a different blend. This new blend is purely for the domestic
Australian market, so there is no cause for dispute in the USA.”
“At Schild Estate Wines we pride ourselves on our commitment to translating the unique
tapestry of our vineyards into wines that speak of honesty and drinkability. We hold ourselves
entirely accountable for standing by the Schild Estate philosophy and motto of ‘Pure Barossa’,”
Mohr continued.
“We are enormously proud of the 2008 Barossa Shiraz and were extremely excited to receive
such a high score for a $20 wine. We will continue to submit wines for tasting with Wine
Spectator and hope to open more effective lines of communication so that uncertainty such as
this can be avoided in future.”
For further comment or images:
Casey Mohr, General Manager, Schild Estate

[n4sir]

The more I look at this, the more confusing it gets - in one part of the story they say this, indicating that these three batches were of the same blend that they reviewed:

Schild Estate produced about 45,600 gallons of 2008 Shiraz from their 400 acres of estate vineyards, bottling it in three batches of 6,000 cases each in November 2009, March 2010 and November 2010. (Wineries will often assemble a blend of their entire production, but then bottle the blend in batches to better handle inventory.) About 5,000 cases were sent to the U.S., where the wine retailed for about $20.

They go on to say the lock codes on bottles of the original blend start with either a 9 or 0 after the L, indicating they were bottled in 2009 or 2010, and therefore the lock code of the new batch would begin with a 1 being bottled in 2011. However, later on they say this:

The additional bottlings came to light because Michael Twelftree, owner of Two Hands Wines in Barossa, also bottles his wines at Barossa Bottling Services. Two Hands winemaker Matt Wenk noticed additional runs under way for Schild Shiraz 2008 late last fall. “We find it incredibly disappointing that a company would take advantage of their position in the Top 100 in this way," said Twelftree.

Given that right now locally it's early Autumn (fall), was this observation of the additional run(s) made March this year, November last year (ie. fall over in the US) or March last year? The latter two tie in with what they said in the first part of the article were batches of the original blend.

Staggered bottlings are nothing new, and I've seen wines stored in refrigerated, stainless steel tanks topped with inert gas to be bottled later with little noticeable difference apart from "freshness" - the blend and for all intents the wine is basically the same. That isn't the issue here though, it's that Schild Estate commissioned a new blend (wine) altogether - somehow I think the whistleblowers must have had some other information other than just the additional bottling runs to find out it was a completely different wine that was being bottled. Whatever it was, the tip off was accurate - the question now is are any of the batches from 2010 the second blend? (without the "2nd blend" labels)

Cheers,
Ian

[GraemeG]

In their defence, the Oz-destined bottling is labelled differently, isn't it?
That puts them one up on yellowtail, surely, who have different RS levels depending on market destination, but nothing to indicate that in the label... ?
cheers,
GG

[n4sir]

Some more commentary about the issue on Harvey Steinman's blog:

What Makes a Wine a Wine?
Fast shuffle on Schild 2008 Shiraz raises issues
Posted: Mar 16, 2011 11:43am ET

http://www.winespectator.com/blogs/show/id/44639

[milky]

Ooooh...
I reckon the fall-out from this will continue on for a little while on US wine media, especially with highly visible wine writers taking interest in this episode and its related "moralistic" or "ethical" issues...

I wonder who else is going to write a "2 cents worth" article/blog/essay?

[odyssey]

The Americans have already developed stereotyped impressions of Australian wine as all being the "same" Barossan generic style. This ain't gonna help.

[n4sir]

Yes, its not good form at all.
Misleading, in the least.
I have a bottle of the 2010 and 2011 bottlings, and will compare them tonight.

Does your bottle of the 2011 run have the additional "2nd blend" label, or is it one that hit the shelves prior to this situation being uncovered?

For that matter, if you still have the bottle handy I wouldn't mind knowing what the final three digits are of the lock code either - the November 2010 bottling date in the story is looking a little rubbery, with my bottles appearing to be bottled in October, others saying theirs look to have been bottled December if the digits equating to the day of the year is correct. If your wine was bottled this month the it would have to be L1060 or later.

Cheers,
Ian

[Brucer]

Ian,

The labels are identical on the bottles I have.
The code is L11048.
On the second day tasting them, the difference is negligible.
From what I can figure out, I have the 2nd and 3rd bottlings.
And, based on tasting the 2, and the fact that WS loved the original bottling, there could well be a difference between bottlings 1 and 2.
I dont really like the wine much.

Bruce

[n4sir]

Ian,

The labels are identical on the bottles I have.
The code is L11048.
On the second day tasting them, the difference is negligible.
From what I can figure out, I have the 2nd and 3rd bottlings.
And, based on tasting the 2, and the fact that WS loved the original bottling, there could well be a difference between bottlings 1 and 2.
I dont really like the wine much.

Bruce

Going by the article's explanation of the lock code, L11048 would be the 48th day of 2011 which would make the bottling date February 17th - this would then be a fourth bottling run if what's said in the article is on the mark (one bottling late 2009, two in 2010, one in 2011).

Cheers,
Ian

[Brucer]

I dont know who is having a lend of who here.

This is Campbell Mattinsons review of the wine dated June 2010
It’s the archetypal rich-but-soft, dark-fruited Barossan shiraz. It’s excellent drinking. It has assertive oak-derived notes of toast and malt but its rich blackberried core offers appropriate support. Orange-peel notes give it an exotic edge. It’s warm and smooth and good value. Nice package 90 points


This is Harvey Steiman, Wine Spectator Dec 2010 taken from Kemenys catalogue received this week
Polished, ripe and complex, this big smooth wine offers roasted meat and walnut accents to the black cherry,tobacco and licorice aromas and flavours. Lingers appealingly on the expansive finish. 94 points


Does this sound like the same wine?
The wines I tasted were far from rich and soft, but do have assertive oak and orange peel.
I did not get any roasted meat,walnuts, tobacco or licorice. I hate licorice in wines.

[DaveB]

I dont know who is having a lend of who here.

This is Campbell Mattinsons review of the wine dated June 2010
It’s the archetypal rich-but-soft, dark-fruited Barossan shiraz. It’s excellent drinking. It has assertive oak-derived notes of toast and malt but its rich blackberried core offers appropriate support. Orange-peel notes give it an exotic edge. It’s warm and smooth and good value. Nice package 90 points


This is Harvey Steiman, Wine Spectator Dec 2010 taken from Kemenys catalogue received this week
Polished, ripe and complex, this big smooth wine offers roasted meat and walnut accents to the black cherry,tobacco and licorice aromas and flavours. Lingers appealingly on the expansive finish. 94 points


Does this sound like the same wine?
The wines I tasted were far from rich and soft, but do have assertive oak and orange peel.
I did not get any roasted meat,walnuts, tobacco or licorice. I hate licorice in wines.

Doesn't mean much....two different critics who burped up two different scores. (Don't get me stated on scoring wines )......scores for the 2009 Ch Cos D'Estournel at last years En Primeur in Bordeaux ranged from 62 points to 99 points

Maybe if Wine Spectator hadn't made a cock up with the bottling codes in the article it may have been clearer.

[KMP]

Has anyone seen or tasted the second wine with the strip label "2nd blend" positioned on the front of the bottle?

Its also a little worrying that Schild has not (yet!) put their Press Release about this up on their web site or their Facebook page. The lack of complete transparency makes it look like they really don't give a %&^$ about informing their consumers or even explaining themselves. Has anyone seen their Press Release in any of the Aussie media? A Google for Schild Estate press release brings up very little in the first few pages - one blog and the WS note!

I would have thought that the release of the 2nd Blend only in Oz would have stirred up a hornet's nest over there? Its the Aussie wine drinker they are screwing with, not the US. Are the Schild wines popular in Oz?

Mike

[DaveB]

I've read it a a few places but their own website and social media channels would probably be a good start

I think over here people are like a bit "meh....that's a pretty crap thing to do....I'm not going to buy their wines again" rather than foaming at the mouth for a couple of reasons...A/ The Wine Spectator means very little to us, B/It's only really appeared in a couple of publications/forums and we don't have the population base of wine geeks to get that riled up about it.

A stupid move by Schild for sure and one that is going to hurt their business and take time to sort out, but what I find most interesting is how the whistle-blowing winery...one that concentrates heavily on U.S. exports, and has featured in the Wine Spectator Top 10 and 100 many times decided to go direct to that magazine to spill the beans instead of reporting the offending winery to trade practises or consumer affairs where the would have been held accountable for their foolishness....that ...makes me sick in the stomach.

For what it has done for the image of Australian and Barossan wine in the U.S. and indeed the world and just for the nastiness and slimey way it was done....and it will effect a lot of wineries.....really bad form.

[ChrisV]

I would have thought that the release of the 2nd Blend only in Oz would have stirred up a hornet's nest over there? Its the Aussie wine drinker they are screwing with, not the US. Are the Schild wines popular in Oz?

Not really, no. Schild is not a winery that your average wine consumer here has heard of. Among those who have heard of them, they're considered to be a decent producer making very typical Barossa wines. The thing is that the only person I've seen to date who is really excited about Schild Estate Shiraz is Steinman. You can poke through Australian wine reviews, WA, Cellartracker etc all you want and the only place you'll see a 94 point review is in the pages of Wine Spectator, a magazine read in Australia by almost nobody. The fact that Schild are not considered a premium brand here also means that people are less likely to get worked up about it. As Campbell Mattinson mentioned on Wine Front, labels like Leasingham Bin 61 et al do this sort of thing all the time and nobody cares because those are industrial wines.

I actually don't think that Schild was intending to cash in on their fame in Spectator because virtually nobody here knows or cares about it. I think they exported all the wine thanks to that fame and then needed more wine for the Australian market, so they made some more, it's as simple as that. However, the lack of intent to deceive mitigates but does not excuse their crime. Once you have a wine heavily reviewed and winning major plaudits, you simply can't release new wine in the same bottle regardless of your intentions in doing so.

[n4sir]

I would have thought that the release of the 2nd Blend only in Oz would have stirred up a hornet's nest over there? Its the Aussie wine drinker they are screwing with, not the US. Are the Schild wines popular in Oz?

Not really, no. Schild is not a winery that your average wine consumer here has heard of. Among those who have heard of them, they're considered to be a decent producer making very typical Barossa wines. The thing is that the only person I've seen to date who is really excited about Schild Estate Shiraz is Steinman. You can poke through Australian wine reviews, WA, Cellartracker etc all you want and the only place you'll see a 94 point review is in the pages of Wine Spectator, a magazine read in Australia by almost nobody. The fact that Schild are not considered a premium brand here also means that people are less likely to get worked up about it. As Campbell Mattinson mentioned on Wine Front, labels like Leasingham Bin 61 et al do this sort of thing all the time and nobody cares because those are industrial wines.

I actually don't think that Schild was intending to cash in on their fame in Spectator because virtually nobody here knows or cares about it. I think they exported all the wine thanks to that fame and then needed more wine for the Australian market, so they made some more, it's as simple as that. However, the lack of intent to deceive mitigates but does not excuse their crime. Once you have a wine heavily reviewed and winning major plaudits, you simply can't release new wine in the same bottle regardless of your intentions in doing so.

Sorry Chris, but I don't quite buy that.

Schild Estate was sold heavily here (in Adelaide) by an well-known independent wine store (and no doubt others like it) a few years ago as an over-producer, someone who had a reputation as a premium seller of grapes to the big boys before the glut and who as a small producer came up with something that punched well above its weight - they did very well and have banked on this reputation locally since. When this story broke another online retailer went back over their records to make sure they hadn't sold the new blend without the proper labeling because they had literally sold thousands of cases of the stuff, and they have had calls from customers worried about what exactly they have purchased.

Adelaide buyers in the know are savvy as to what does well somewhere, well anywhere, and buy up accordingly - a couple of years ago the 2005 Majella Cabernet Sauvignon was a slow seller when it had limited success on the local show circuit, then it won top trophies at the International Wine Show in London and was completely snapped up in the space of a couple of days after the announcement. It's the same thing for anything else that does well anywhere - a Hyatt-Advertiser winner, a Stoddard Trophy at Brisbane, a 97 point Halliday rating, or any trophy winner at the Adelaide show, it all means a rush for sales... which is why it was such a big surprise that Schild Estate still had some of the 2008 Shiraz to sell after it cracked a 94 point rating with Wine Spectator and such a high place in its December issue. If buyers find out they've been sold an imposter based on a review of what is for all intents another wine they'll be seriously peeved, and so they should be.

I also have to seriously doubt Schild Estate's statement that they didn't intend to mislead buyers because they didn't add the "2nd Blend" addition to the label until after the tip off to Wine Spectator and they started asking questions - they have also admitted to shifting local stock of the first blend overseas to take advantage of the Wine Spectator score which is what led to the local shortfall, so if that isn't cashing in on their fame I don't know what is. Why was the new blend aimed at the local market instead of being shipped directly overseas? Was it because the alcohol would have been outside the 0.5% variance allowed overseas and would therefore have to be altered on the label (and it would be spotted), but they could get away with it here without any changes to the label because our allowance is up to 1.5%? I get the feeling there is more to this story and additional questions to be asked if someone has the balls to do it - in the end though there will be no winners from this monumental mess, so it probably won't happen.

My 2c,
Ian

[DaveB]

Ian....what's the issue with moving domestic stock of the first blend to export markets if the need is there???.....granted they should have been happy to sell out and left it at that. There is a lot to be said for the power of scarcity in a marketing situation and Len Evans once said that the best advertising you can have for your wine is to be sold out. There is more to this situation but I'm not about to discuss it on a forum apart from saying that there is some pretty dodgy stuff going on from all parties involved

[milky]

When I was in Adelaide, every time I come across someone pouring Schild Estate, they have always sell me the story that SE is an over-achiever, great VFM wines etc.. (In fact, I find their entry-level shiraz more enjoyable than their premium label - "Ben Schild", I think - but that's besides the point.) Surely, this WS 94-pointer + high rank in top 100 would have helped them in furthering that reputation.

I agree that there isn't much wrong to divert as much stock as possible to the US to take advantage of that great press there, and earn a few more bucks, other than the fact that local consumers (their customer base, no less!) would lose out on this good VFM wine. So, instead of disappointing, they've decided to do a "but wait there's more", "here's some more barrels we've prepared earlier" etc... oh well!

[n4sir]

Ian....what's the issue with moving domestic stock of the first blend to export markets if the need is there???.....granted they should have been happy to sell out and left it at that. There is a lot to be said for the power of scarcity in a marketing situation and Len Evans once said that the best advertising you can have for your wine is to be sold out. There is more to this situation but I'm not about to discuss it on a forum apart from saying that there is some pretty dodgy stuff going on from all parties involved

I don't have an issue with Schild Estate (or anyone else for that matter) moving domestic stock overseas if they figure they can generate more sales - the point I made was to directly answer this part of the reply from Chris:

I actually don't think that Schild was intending to cash in on their fame in Spectator because virtually nobody here knows or cares about it. I think they exported all the wine thanks to that fame and then needed more wine for the Australian market, so they made some more, it's as simple as that. However, the lack of intent to deceive mitigates but does not excuse their crime. Once you have a wine heavily reviewed and winning major plaudits, you simply can't release new wine in the same bottle regardless of your intentions in doing so.

Of course they intended to cash in on the review by Wine Spectator by allocating as much local stock as they thought they could to the USA, they have admitted to it in the article and even in the press release. The question of their intentions becomes more murky though when they went as far as commissioning a replacement wine made up of a completely new blend for the local market without any identifying labeling (until after the tip off and subsequent investigation by WS), something confirmed by some people and retailers finding bottles with the latest post-2010 lock codes without the "2nd blend" addition. Was this done because they were genuinely caught short here because of an unexpected increase in local sales after the WS score and the missed labeling was an oversight, or was it all a premeditated action because they figured they'd have more chance of getting away with substituting a new blend here with our looser labeling requirements than sending it overseas?

Cheers,
Ian

[ChrisV]

Fair enough Ian. Probably I am projecting my own perception of Schild Estate and Wine Spectator onto other buyers. I would be pretty surprised if Schild had much brand recognition amongst the general public, but it sounds like they have more of a reputation amongst savvy buyers that I'd thought.

While any gong a wine gets helps its sales, I think it's fair to say that the big American critics' scores are regarded with some skepticism in Australia. Robert Parker's love affair with Mollydooker has not (as far as I know) led to huge demand in Australia, nor has his trashing of Mount Mary Quintet made a dent in the auction market for it. Going back to Steinman, anyone who can rate the 2004 Schild Estate a 96 and the 2005 D'Arenberg Dead Arm a 77 clearly has a palate that is on a different planet from mine and I suspect from most Australian red drinkers.

Of course they intended to cash in on the review by Wine Spectator by allocating as much local stock as they thought they could to the USA, they have admitted to it in the article and even in the press release. The question of their intentions becomes more murky though when they went as far as commissioning a replacement wine made up of a completely new blend for the local market without any identifying labeling (until after the tip off and subsequent investigation by WS), something confirmed by some people and retailers finding bottles with the latest post-2010 lock codes without the "2nd blend" addition. Was this done because they were genuinely caught short here because of an unexpected increase in local sales after the WS score and the missed labeling was an oversight, or was it all a premeditated action because they figured they'd have more chance of getting away with substituting a new blend here with our looser labeling requirements than sending it overseas?

My thinking was that they were shifting the stuff that got the 94 point rating out of Australia where nobody much cared about it and into the American market where that rating would carry more prestige. Since my instinct was also that local consumers couldn't care less what Steinman scored the wine, I could understand them thinking so too. However I suppose unless they made an effort to actively inform people that what they were tasting/buying was not the 94 point scored wine, it would qualify as intent to deceive regardless of why they decided to sell the new stuff locally. And in any case you may well be right about the alcohol content being the reason.

Edit: Also I'm pretty sure I remember them spruiking to me at an instore about the Wine Spectator ranking they'd got, so clearly they thought it might have some impact on consumers here.