The Auswine Forum

I spoke to my friend who is working in heritage listing and archeaology, and she was dumbfounded by Bell's conclusions. The two things that made her jaw drop?

1. She said a consultant Historian is not the right person to be making these judgements.

2. "(15) This land is of no heritage significance"- WTF?! She said the field of heritage listing and cultural boundaries had moved beyond the point of this sort of categorical statement.

Unfortunately it can take a while for real thought and study to make its way into the practical world. It may well be too late for this vineyard, but hopefully it will be soon enough for other places/sites/buildings etc that are under threat.

To James I say; in your excellent bog on John Reynell, you have provided a balanced and well presented piece, even though it appears you are part of the dreaded 'emotive campaign' that is threatening the company that commissioned Bell to write the report. From the first moment I read that he accused those who oppose his particular view of history as suffering from "nibbyism", my concern about how he had written his report was alerted. Clearly those emotive, pejorative terms are used in an attempt to deflect open scrutiny and criticism, by attempting to embarrass and discredit anyone who may have an opposing view.

This wouldn't be the first time that this particular historian has been found wanting. In 2001, he was forced to make the following admission, "I have never heard of Alfred Burtt until the events surrounding the stone came up in the last few days." when asked about his knowledge of what is considered by some to be one of Central Australia's most important item of European historical heritage. (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2001/s320729.htm)

I indicated in a previous post, that Bell seems to have omitted those references that support the role of John Reynell, in particular, the Handbook of South Australia. He makes the statement "We do not know how much has been left out of the original letters. They are not publicly accessible, if they still exist", when attempting to justify apparent inconsistencies in works compiled by John Reynell's grand-daughter, Lenore. I have been informed that John Reynell's diaries are available for public research in the La Trobe Collection of the State Library of Victoria as part of the Library’s collection of Australiana. I am unable to personally verify this, however there may be others who can. If indeed this is the case, Bell is either unaware of the collection, or chooses not to recognize the existence of them.

On page 9 of his report, Bell refers to John Reynell's own account of his activities on the land, and describes them as being written in a Day Book, kept erratically in 1840 and 1841, in which he jotted untidy accounts, notes on the weather and information on animals, planting and other work on the farm, in no particular date order, or rather several date orders in different parts of the book. He then quotes from John Reynell's notes by indicating that there was only one mention of grapes in the two years of entries, where John Reynell records on 4 August 1841, "put in vines for covered walk & pruned old vines" Bell then embarks upon an incredible leap into the unknown, when he states, "But it is not clear why Reynell would suddenly refer to 'old' vines, when in his two notebooks, kept for two years before that day, had never mentioned any vines before" He has just described John Reynell's accounts of his time as "erratic" and "untidy", and is now appearing to use the absence of any previous mention of pruning of vines to try to discount the idea that there were "old" vines on John Reynell's land in 1841.

What follows is an exercise in what can best be described as a process of finding flaws in the writing, rather than making any effort to improve the thought or meaning of the words. In his pedantic diatribe "Were the vines months old or years old? Where had they come from? If they were more than a year old, wouldn't he have noted pruning them the year before?" he tries to discredit the entries in the journal. Bell doesn't answer the questions, and seems to imply the absence of answers somehow suggests that the "old" vines weren't "old" and then in a further leap, he assumes that these vine plantings were equally likely to have been table grapes as wine grapes.

The words Bell uses to describe what he suggests is a "campaign", where "Most of the facts in these media statements are distorted, many are simply incorrect, and others state things which are simply unknowable" could equally describe what Bell writes about the "old" vines.

A very interesting book published in 1906, and available online here, http://www.archive.org/stream/sunnysout ... 6/mode/2up, provides a further insite into the early years of John Reynell and his role in establishing the wine industry in this state. In her book, referenced above, May Vivienne writes on page 187;

Reynella is named after the late Mr. John Reynell, who was the first to import cuttings of vines to South Australia, obtaining the cuttings from Sir William McArthur, of New South Wales. Mr. Reynell planted the first vineyard and made the first wine in this State, so it was really interesting to look at the Reynella vineyard and wine-cellars, knowing it was the very first one in South Australia, and the start of the numerous other vineyards which are doing so much towards the prosperity of this sunny southern State. Cuttings from Mr. Reynell's vineyard were planted in various parts of the country.

This seems somewhat at odds with Bell's statement when he accuses Walter Reynell and Sons Pty Ltd and/or Thomas Hardy and Sons of "blurring" the history of the vineyard in their promotional material when he says;

The company's own advertising has sought to inflate both the historical importance and the sense of continuity of the Reynella vineyards for commercial reasons. Statements such as these from the 1980s perpetuated a process already underway of blurring facts and myths and bad history, and are undoubtedly continuing to provide background for the farrago of misinformation being promulgated at present.

Given that May Vivienne's book was published in 1906, it would appear that the conspiracy theory that Bell is suggesting is occurring with respect to John Reynell and the vineyard, started back in 1906 (possibly even earlier), and not in the early 1980s.

In his book, The Descendants of the Pioneer Winemakes of South Australia, author Walter Bagenal, favors the Reynell claim of being the first to make a cask of wine.

So it is clear that Bell has not included all the available information in making his claims, and where he has indicated evidence exists, he dismisses it with accusations such as the absence of original documents, or by being merely digests or extracts of the original letters, and accusing Lenore Reynell of generating a family tree which goes back rather improbably to the twelfth century. Bell chooses to diminish this, without providing evidence that in fact, it is improbable.

Certainly the idea John Reynell was the first to plant vines goes back to the turn of the 20th Century. As I have said whether John was the first, or in the first half dozen is not the issue. The issue is that the wine industry has held him as the first for a very long time.

It will be all over by tonight. Monday 28th September will go down as Destruction Day for the Stony Hill vineyard. If there are any vines left by 7pm tonight I will be very surprised

http://sites.google.com/site/stonyhilld ... &width=420

or this one for the full size image (sorry about the URL length)

http://475479644085839019-a-18027447737 ... edirects=0

Jess Whiting at the Southern Times has published an article here; http://southern-times-messenger.whereil ... -vineyard/

James Douglas Hook wrote:Certainly the idea John Reynell was the first to plant vines goes back to the turn of the 20th Century. As I have said whether John was the first, or in the first half dozen is not the issue. The issue is that the wine industry has held him as the first for a very long time.

The last sentence is what I believe my friend was getting at. Cultural capital/worth is beginning to be considered outside of the also imprecise world of supposedly objective history. "History" is very important but too probelmatic to be used as the sole guide in determining heritage significance. Besides, people like Bell know how to "play" history to suit their agendas.

The Stony Hill vineyard was bulldozed yesterday, and was the Channel 9 news lead story last night (slow news day?)

Unfortunately, unlike the ACA story it doesn't look like there's any online video footage to link to, but there is a story in the messenger with photos:

http://southern-times-messenger.whereil ... -vineyard/

Cheers,
Ian

Ps. The messenger article also happens to mention how many pieces of silver Constellation got for selling off a piece of the Australian Wine Industry's heritage to be lost forever ($3.8M).

Goodbye Stonehaven Wines....

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... public_rss

Wine glut vineyards abandonedArticle from: Font size: Decrease Increase Email article: Email Print article: Print Submit comment: Submit comment NIGEL AUSTIN
October 12, 2009 12:01am
WINE companies are being forced to close their businesses and abandon vineyards as demand for their product dries up.

South Australia's wine industry has plunged into a deep crisis that threatens to claim hundreds of jobs.

Great Southern, Australia's largest agricultural investor until it went into receivership in May, has announced it has shut the gates on a large proportion of its 750ha of SA vineyards. Constellation Wines has said it will close its Stonehaven Winery at Padthaway, in the state's South-East, in November.

The announcement comes only months after it closed its Leasingham winery at Clare.

Industry leaders expect 6000ha to 8000ha of Australian vineyards will be left barren this year due to climatic and economic problems.

Prime vineyard land in McLaren Vale is reportedly set to be sold for housing.

Wine Grape Growers' Australia executive director Mark McKenzie said a large percentage of the grape growing and wine making community was in severe financial stress.

'"We have at least 20,000ha of vineyards more than we need," Mr McKenzie said.
The wine industry needed to cut at least 10 per cent of Australia's 177,000ha of vineyards from production, he said.

The fallout of the wine slump has delivered bargain-priced wines to consumers as companies look for new ways to offload unwanted grapes.

The crisis has been exacerbated by an export market crash from the $2.98 billion peak in 2006-07 to $2.35 billion in the past 12 months. The rising value of the Australian dollar is also making it difficult to sell wine to major overseasmarkets.

Mr McKenzie said the outline of a Wine Industry Restructuring Action Agenda had been presented to the Federal Government by four major national wine organisations.

"The Government has made it clear they won't get involved in an old-style vine-pull scheme," he said.

"An emphatic industry statement will be made at the end of this month showing the scope and location of the oversupply in the wine industry."

Mr McKenzie said research indicated a chronic oversupply of grape and wine production in Australia.

The closure of the 10,000-tonne Stonehaven winery on November 27 comes only 11 years after the $20 million plant and cellar door was opened with considerable fanfare.

Constellation Wines spokeswoman Sheralee Davies said 12 people would be made redundant at Stonehaven, which employed more than 30 people at its peak.

Stonehaven has failed to sell since it was placed on the market in August 2008.

Ms Davies said the Stonehaven and Leasingham brands were being retained and the wine made at its other SA wineries, Reynella, Tintara and Berri, depending on the fruit and its grade.

Great Southern was placed in receivership on May 20 and 750ha of vineyards in SA at Langhorne Creek, the Riverland, Barossa Valley, Adelaide Hills and Coonawarra have been on the market for many months.

McGrathNicol receiver and manager James Thackray said since funding for the vineyards ceased on September 30, it had been unable to undertake any further work on the vineyards.

"A report by a viticultural consultant has advised due to poor grape prices and the high cost of irrigation, the majority of vineyards within the scheme are not economically viable in the current market," he said.

Mr McKenzie said big vintages in the past two years, with another large volume harvest expected next year, indicated a further decline in grape prices. "We had a 30-50 per cent drop in grape prices last year and there are indications of a further 20-30 per cent fall this coming harvest," he said.

"The bottom line for growers is if they are out of contract and can't find a market for their fruit, they are facing extremely difficult market conditions in 2010."

Langhorne Creek grape grower John Follett said he was pulling out old chardonnay vines and would grow hay on the land until the industry improved

Thoroughly disappointing - but if it means Constellation and / or Fosters will eventually forfeit market share, I find myself not being all that affronted after all

Peter Bell in his Devine commissioned rewrite of history, made mention of the origins of the term Stony Hill. He says the name Stony Hill is a puzzle because the ground is not stony. I suppose it never occurred to him that over 161 years, that successive owners would have cleared the stones and rocks to allow the business of growing grapes to occur.

I only mention this, because over the last week I have noticed the heavy equipment on site labouring through large chunks of rock in the southern part of the site.

As is the case with other aspects of Bell's report, he has taken a cursory, superficial glance at the site and made his erroneous assumptions based on this type of analysis.

For those who see the site as of today, will truly see a "Stony Hill", with large boulders that have been excavated in order to lay the sewage pipes. Perhaps I should place a copy of Bell's report in one of these trenches, because that is clearly where it belongs

phoenix wrote: Perhaps I should place a copy of Bell's report in one of these trenches, because that is clearly where it belongs

Surely they might be digging a "cess pit" which would be even more suitable.
Mike.

Philip White's latest comments on Constellation's "values & culture":

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2009/11/c ... lture.html

Even more commentary by Philip White:

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2009/11/c ... crown.html

Lots of irony here - a Constellation man crowned Bushing King immediately after Philip is presented the Trott Family Trophy for his efforts protecting McLaren Vale’s dwindling green belt, the potential unholy matrimony between what's left of various Constellation bits and Australian Vintage, and the vague possibilty of Chateau Reynella once again being back in the hands of the Hardy family.

Cheers,
Ian

I'm not sure what AdCiv, the mob laying the sewage lines have done, but the north-western corner of the site is looking decidedly boggy at the moment. I'm wondering whether they have somehow disrupted one or more of the natural springs that are near the creek. When they dug up the existing sewage man hole, the excavation quickly filled with water to about a depth of two feet.

One of the old timers, Perc, who used to work the vineyard, used to tell us about the water hole that was on the northern edge of Stony Hill. This part of the creek always has water in it, even in the middle of the driest periods. Wouldn't it be ironic if they turn the low lying northern part of the site into an uninhabitable wetland. I certainly wouldn't want to be living in the blocks having seen how much ground water there is

A perfect Christmas present for Peter Bell to refresh his memory?:

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... SS:AU:1123

n4sir wrote:A perfect Christmas present for Peter Bell to refresh his memory?:

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... SS:AU:1123

or perhaps http://www.mobipocket.com/en/eBooks/eBo ... okID=84158

AdelaideNow
The Advertiser
July 5, 2010 8:14pm

A REYNELLA winery is planning to cut 70 jobs. Constellation Wines, which includes the Hardy's brand, yesterday announced to its staff it would seek voluntary redundancies, including an estimated 56 jobs in its bottling plant and 14 in management.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 5888219740

Not a huge surprise given their recent history of selling off vineyards/closing wineries, dumping wines, screwing over their long-term grapegowers and previous staff cuts. I wonder what little will be left by the time they're finished gutting this once mighty company...

Cheers,
Ian

Philip White's latest piece on the ongoing saga of urban encroachment into the McLaren Vale GIC - the latest development to be approved is 1700 houses to be built at "Seaford Heights", east of South Road and opposite Paxton's Gateway vineyard at the very entrance to McLaren Vale:

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2010/10/m ... -govt.html

One can only wonder about the perople who will buy at Seaford Heights, not that I know the area at all. Will they be thinking some sort of cache that they're moving into a premium winemaking region that will add prestige and value to their properties? The downside they'll probably not consider is that they're diminishing the area available for vineyards.

daz

Somehow I missed this article of Philip White a few months ago which details the extent to which some McLaren Vale grapegrowers had been screwed this year (I heard about this around the traps at picking time, but hadn't seen the printed article until now):

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2010/04/c ... -vale.html

Also missed this one too - anyone wanna be my punching bag?

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2010/04/c ... -flak.html

Cheers,
Ian

n4sir wrote:http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2010/04/constellation-seeks-hardy-flak.html

Backstabbing experience a plus.

Slight thread drift...

It appears HRH Jancis has weighed into the threat of urban sprawl into McLaren Vale, more specifically her objection to the proposed Seaford Heights development which was recently blocked by the Onkaparinga Council. As a potential major status project of over $10M, the State Government (ie. Minister Holloway, taking into account recommendations by the DAP) can still override the council's decision for it to go ahead anyway:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 5934563898
http://www.decanter.com/news/wine-news/ ... evelopment

Cheers,
Ian

n4sir wrote:Slight thread drift...

It appears HRH Jancis has weighed into the threat of urban sprawl into McLaren Vale, more specifically her objection to the proposed Seaford Heights development which was recently blocked by the Onkaparinga Council. As a potential major status project of over $10M, the State Government (ie. Minister Holloway, taking into account recommendations by the DAP) can still override the council's decision for it to go ahead anyway:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 5934563898
http://www.decanter.com/news/wine-news/ ... evelopment

Cheers,
Ian

ABC's Stateline broadcast a story last Friday night about the above fight for Seaford Heights, along with an interview with Minister Paul Holloway. Some of the things sound suspiciously similar to what happened at Reynella (limited notice of the proposed housing development to selected neighboring residents, the Onkaparinga Council blaming the State Government & vice-versa, Leon Bignell trying to pacify the natives while the bulldozers are waiting to crank up...)

http://abc.com.au/news/video/2010/11/05/3058859.htm
http://abc.com.au/news/video/2010/11/05/3058872.htm

There's also a facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/WE-OPPOSE ... 0679996263

Cheers,
Ian

Whitey's details of Dudley Brown's final parting shot as Chairman of the McLaren Vale Grape Wine and Tourism Association, and the Council's response:

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2010/12/s ... uncil.html

It all might come to nought anyway if the Hollowman grants it major project staus and overrides any council decision. The fight's nowhere near won, and the bulldozers are still waiting...

Hardys wine company sold for $290m. According to http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/ ... 5975701946. Does anyone know anything about CHAMP private equity.

n4sir wrote:

n4sir wrote:Slight thread drift...

It appears HRH Jancis has weighed into the threat of urban sprawl into McLaren Vale, more specifically her objection to the proposed Seaford Heights development which was recently blocked by the Onkaparinga Council. As a potential major status project of over $10M, the State Government (ie. Minister Holloway, taking into account recommendations by the DAP) can still override the council's decision for it to go ahead anyway:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 5934563898
http://www.decanter.com/news/wine-news/ ... evelopment

Cheers,
Ian

ABC's Stateline broadcast a story last Friday night about the above fight for Seaford Heights, along with an interview with Minister Paul Holloway. Some of the things sound suspiciously similar to what happened at Reynella (limited notice of the proposed housing development to selected neighboring residents, the Onkaparinga Council blaming the State Government & vice-versa, Leon Bignell trying to pacify the natives while the bulldozers are waiting to crank up...)

http://abc.com.au/news/video/2010/11/05/3058859.htm
http://abc.com.au/news/video/2010/11/05/3058872.htm

There's also a facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/WE-OPPOSE ... 0679996263

Cheers,
Ian

A few months down the track after the Government waited for the heat to settle down, there's a new face as Minister (John Rau) but it still appears to be full steam ahead to develop Seaford Heights. You have to automatically think that when Mayor Lorraine Rosenberg gets excited the rows of wall-to-wall housing and colourbond isn't too far away...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... 179526.htm

Cheers,
Ian

As predicted, the recently identified, the last potentially great piece of unused winemaking land in McLaren Vale has been condemmed to the bulldozers & jackhammers to build another yuppie ghetto:

Green light for Seaford Heights expansion
AdelaideNow
May 25, 2011 11:16AM
Political Reporter Sarah Martin

A CONTROVERSIAL development plan for Seaford Heights has been given the green light by the State Government, despite opposition from the adjacent McLaren Vale wine region.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6062568763

n4sir wrote:As predicted, the recently identified, the last potentially great piece of unused winemaking land in McLaren Vale has been condemmed to the bulldozers & jackhammers to build another yuppie ghetto:

Green light for Seaford Heights expansion
AdelaideNow
May 25, 2011 11:16AM
Political Reporter Sarah Martin

A CONTROVERSIAL development plan for Seaford Heights has been given the green light by the State Government, despite opposition from the adjacent McLaren Vale wine region.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6062568763

It didn't take the incoming Development minister very long to get nobbled by the developers

And there's murmurs again that Glenthorne Farm is secretly back on the radar for development - the late Greg Trott must be turning in his grave:

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2011/05/g ... table.html

Grape growers slam 'mad' housing plan
From: The Australian
Verity Edwards
May 26, 2011 12:00AM

ANGRY McLaren Vale grape growers say the Rann government's decision to allow a controversial $500 million development on the doorstep of the region is sheer madness, ruining some of the best agricultural land in the nation.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6062973592