2012 Sydney Royal Easter Show Results

[Phil H]

Hopefully this topic has not been previously discussed, however I have just perused the results and was surprised at the results.
http://www.myras.com.au/res/results/WineResults.aspx
There were a lot of wines there I would not expect to win medals, let alone win anything. There were also a lot of wines missing that you would expect to see, and rate very well.
Obviously to win awards you have to submit your wine for evaluation. Is it the case that a lot of quality wineries do not submit their wine to this show for judging?

[Polymer]

The whites were fine...The reds were really disappointing...Across the board really....

Not all wineries submit their wines...and some don't submit all of their wines...I wouldn't put too much weight into the results either way.

I'm of the opinion that to get a Gold or Trophy, the wine is probably at least somewhat decent. But not winning something does not mean that a particular wine was not good...Or that it won't win something in some other show (and the lack of consistency is why some people refer to the shows as a lucky dip) or even that the one that won a trophy is a better wine than the one that didn't get anything....At this particular show, with these particular people, in the order they drank it and at that point in time, wine A was showing better than wine B.

[GraemeG]

My word they don't.
Most of the wineries whose wine is in demand - or those who have plenty to lose - don't submit wines to shows.
In fact, having attended the Exhibitors' tasting on the morning of the 17th, and gone through the catalogue, there were 'relatively' few of the apex of the Australian industry who submmit wines (to the Sydney show at least).
And even the show itself doesn't get it right; for the 2nd rank Langhi Cliff Edge to win 'best red of show' (and Shaw's 'The Idiot' shiraz last year) tells me that the current judging system can't possibly reveal the 'best' wines (by whatever measure).

The Sydney show (and I presume the rest of the capital city shows) tend to be carpet-bombed by larger commercial (often family) wineries, or by smaller players hoping to 'hit the jackpot' and put their name on the board.
So there are plenty of entries from Bests, McWilliams, de Bortoli, d'Arenberg, Tyrrells (whites only), Yalumba, and so forth.
Of the established names there are much rarer sightings. Of the Langtons classification, I'd be surprised if more than 15% of them are entered.
Brand managers tend to be strategic; this year there were a few Penfolds BinA chardonnays, for instance, but little in the way of reds (not always the case in past years).
I imagine the entry list is online - have a browse.
cheers,
GG

[Polymer]

It is definitely true that the ones with an established reputation can only lose in entering the show....and like you said, there are definite strategic placings... Penfolds seems to send a couple of decent ones each year....Last year they had the 707. This year the Bin A and Great Grandfather.

To be fair to the Sydney show, they do get most of the best stuff from the Hunter...Minus Graveyard and some Tyrrells stuff...and they do get the top Semillons and most of the top Rieslings from all over Australia..

[mf]

On the general comment on wine shows - I would broadly agree with Polymer.

Running off memory from going through the show list, going to the tasting and comparing to the Langton's classification I have about 26 of the 123 Langton's wines appearing at the show (about 20%). I can't think of many tastings where you would get to taste this many of those wines (apart from maybe the actual Langton's tasting where they had them all) and definitely not the ability to have some mini verticals (particular with some of the Semillons and Rieslings).

I also would not think of Langton's classification as the absolute standard bearer on quality wine either. I would say that the wine show has a much greater diversity of wines (and up and coming wineries) than the Langton's classification, which is heavily laden with South Australian reds (i.e. they account for more than half of the list) and by default (and not its fault given its criterion) totally ignores new wineries or wineries doing new and exciting things.

I don't really know but I am doubting there would be many, if any, other Australian wine shows that would have a better range of wines on show.

I would kind of agree that some of the trophy winners, mostly in the reds were a bit odd but most I found pretty good at their price point (also liked the Best's Bin 0 a lot - but if you don't like cool climate Shiraz then you probably won't like that either). This kind of thing just keeps reminding me of how incredibly subjective wine is - for example, I noted the other day a wine writer mentioned how much they were not a fan of Leasingham Classic Clare Cab Sav 2006 (a trophy winner) and how old fashioned it was, however the one wine I did not get to taste of the trophy winners was this one (as it was all gone before all other trophy winners) - so somebody is still seeking out this kind of wine.

[Brucer]

I found that at this show there was a lot of good/average wines, and very few amazing ones.

[DaveB]

Did any of you bother to read the judges class comments in the results....as with any show, you look at what's in the glass in front of you on the day...that is all that you can do.

[GraemeG]

Yes - and the comments in the catalogue are appropriately scathing for many classes!
I heard Riggs say at the 2011 show the gold mdeal rate was 6%.
I'd be surprised if 2012 matched that.
Dave, I see you got the "Acres of beige" unwooded whites class. Bummer.
cheers,
GG

[sjw_11]

No offence to those of you who are involved in wine shows, and Im well aware of the challenges they throw up. But perusing the results you can see why a lot of people pay no attention to the medals a wine has supposedly won. Some examples from this group:

In Class 2 (Semillon) the Peter Lehmann Art Series Semillon Blanc gets a bronze, as does a range of other mass produced stuff (Diamon Label, Goundrey Homestead, Jacobs Creek), while the Brokenwood Semillon gets nothing, and the Tyrrell's Stevens also only gets a bronze (albeit its the '11, normally released in 3-4yrs).

In Class 3 (Sav Blanc) Im pleased to know the WB Yellow Label is one of the rare wines to get a Gold Medal. I need never pay more than $10 for top sav blanc again.

In Class 4 (Chardonnay) I see Linedeman's Bin 65 c'ardonnay is a genuine solid Bronze, while Wynns, Brown Brothers, and Tyrrell's all miss out with their (much better in my view) cheapies.

Class 5 tells me Tahbilk Marsanne is unworthy of a medal, but I should buy a range of commercial pinot grigio.

Class 10 gives nothing to Tahbilk Shiraz, Elderton Shiraz, Lake Breeze Bernoota, D'arry's Original, or Zema Estate shiraz, but does find a silver medal for Greg Norman Estates Shiraz Cab (most commonly found in the US or the clearance bins of Dan's).

Class 13 can't find any love for the D'arry Coppermine Road, Zema Estate, or Tahbilk's Cab, yet the Class 12 Cabernerts finds a solid bronze for Lindemans Bin 45 Cabernet and Wolf Blass Red Label!

And thats just in the commercial classes! Looking at the varietal classes, and just the odd balls... its good to see Vat 1 Semillon 2007 and 2005 are below medal points. Tahbilk's '08 Marsanne also misses out, but Wolf Blass YL Merlot is a bronzer. Actually Wolf Blass YL had a cracker competition with their Cab scoring a bronze, over the Yalumba Menzies (no medal), Bests Great Western, Schild Estate, Hentley Farm. By contrast, poor old Tahbilk came a cropper, with even their $50/bottle Eric Stevens Pubrick Cabernet getting a big fat zip, outpointed by a whole host (including, effectively, the Lindemans Bin 45 since that was a cabernet, different class but same show, and got a bronze!)

Can someone explain to me the need to distinguish commercial, varietal and premium classes? And how when its in a "premium class" the Tyrrell's Vat 1 (2006 this time) suddenly goes to a Gold? And a Tahbilk Marsanne (2007 this time) finally scores some points?

Of course, even then the D'arry Dead Arm is a sub-medal worthy wine (both the '08 and the '09), though it was outpointed by the much cheaper Colonial Estate wines which can be had by the crate from your preferred "el cheapo cheapo" online merchant.

And finally: the Penfolds Great Grandfather, getting a solid Bronze... beaten by the regular Grandfather (commercial class) with a silver and the Pennies Bluestone 10-yr Old (same class) which also shone silver!

And sorry got carried away, don't mean to cast any aspersions about the process or people involved, just found the outcomes interesting.

[phillisc]

Sam, a really excellent post...great points made. What I find even more dumbfounding it that you can have a panel of judges and associate judges who officiate at multiple shows, judging the exact same classes of wine and one wine gets a gold and comes second to the trophy winner, and in the next show is a few points off even making a bronze.

I do find this annoying for wines that i have collected for years, but are thankful that the same chest thumpers (large wineries on the whole), the same companies who portray their wines to the trophy hunters and not to those consumers who are far more balanced in their assessments, do not continually hog the lime light.

I vividly remember a prominent cabernet winning 5 trophies at the sydney show a few years back and its price went from 40 to 110 $AUD overnight.
Perhaps inadvertently the judges are doing us a favour by giving trophies and golds to wines where you either scratch your head, or would never buy anyway...so it the end it makes precious little difference.

Cheers Craig.

[DaveB]

Yes - and the comments in the catalogue are appropriately scathing for many classes!
I heard Riggs say at the 2011 show the gold mdeal rate was 6%.
I'd be surprised if 2012 matched that.
Dave, I see you got the "Acres of beige" unwooded whites class. Bummer.
cheers,
GG

Graeme....pretty accurate summary I reckon

[DaveB]

Sam & Craig,

Like I said in my previous post you can only look at what is in the glass in front of you on the day....and of course wines are going to show differently at different shows. A wine you try yourself will taste differently according to the setting you have it in (cellar-door, on the porch, getting elbowed at some public tasting), what mood you are in, etc.....wines are a moving target......the tasters are a moving target.

[Brucer]

Sam & Craig,

Like I said in my previous post you can only look at what is in the glass in front of you on the day....and of course wines are going to show differently at different shows. A wine you try yourself will taste differently according to the setting you have it in (cellar-door, on the porch, getting elbowed at some public tasting), what mood you are in, etc.....wines are a moving target......the tasters are a moving target.

Dave, I could not agree more.

[Polymer]

Sam & Craig,

Like I said in my previous post you can only look at what is in the glass in front of you on the day....and of course wines are going to show differently at different shows. A wine you try yourself will taste differently according to the setting you have it in (cellar-door, on the porch, getting elbowed at some public tasting), what mood you are in, etc.....wines are a moving target......the tasters are a moving target.

No doubt..I mean, there is nothing else to go by but what is in front of you right?

I did have a couple of questions though..

Have you ever scored a wine a Gold ..tasted it a few days or weeks later and asked yourself "wtf was I thinking?" (or maybe something not quite that drastic).
Or just in general, scored a wine very well at a show but then had it later and it was terrible?

[phillisc]

Sam & Craig,

Like I said in my previous post you can only look at what is in the glass in front of you on the day....and of course wines are going to show differently at different shows. A wine you try yourself will taste differently according to the setting you have it in (cellar-door, on the porch, getting elbowed at some public tasting), what mood you are in, etc.....wines are a moving target......the tasters are a moving target.

Dave, thanks for the comments and a difficult task trying to sift through a 100+ youngsters with olfactory adaptation setting in after the 10th specimen is very challenging, I know, in a former life I did it twice.
Wine is very subjective, I was a Rockford many years ago and Robert put 4 wines on the bench in the stonewallers room at the inaugural 96 SVS releases. These were tasted blind against the 3 SVS's (also tasted blind) with about 6 of us, the 4 other wines were the totem shiraz marques for the Barossa of the same vintage, no names no pack drill, but you can be confident with your guesses. The SVS's came 1-4th from all 6 tasters. Which proves your point, something as good as an SVS at the CD (not much better experiences than that) obviously plays tricks with your mind, its almost like i want to pick the SVS as the preferred wines and 6 out of 6 of us did...go figure. If i was in a whitecoat at the Adelaide show in an aged shiraz class, the results would be completely different.

What this tells me is it is much better in terms of consistency of results and perhaps judging, to have some idea of what the wines are, but of course served blind. IMHO the national show, where all golds and trophy winners are already known, but now up against each other blind is a better indicator of true quality and performance.

Cheers Craig.

[Red Bigot]

What this tells me is it is much better in terms of consistency of results and perhaps judging, to have some idea of what the wines are, but of course served blind. IMHO the national show, where all golds and trophy winners are already known, but now up against each other blind is a better indicator of true quality and performance.

Cheers Craig.

Not sure what you are saying here, but at the NWS the Top Golds from the classes that go into the Trophy/Best Wine of Type/Show taste off are NOT known to the judges (unless they judged them and guessed), only the stewards/show committee know what the wines are.

[GraemeG]

Sam & Craig,

Like I said in my previous post you can only look at what is in the glass in front of you on the day....and of course wines are going to show differently at different shows. A wine you try yourself will taste differently according to the setting you have it in (cellar-door, on the porch, getting elbowed at some public tasting), what mood you are in, etc.....wines are a moving target......the tasters are a moving target.

Yeah, it's OK and all, but the trouble is that this particular approach rather suggests you should basically ignore all show results (and ,since historically they were about 'improving the breed' and not about marketing, that's probably right).
There were plenty of wines entered in the 2012 Sydney show that had completely different results when they were entered in the 2011 show.
OK, perhaps they didn't have exactly the same judging panels on their cases, but the fact remains, should there be that much of a variance? Tasting conditions are consistent; and I'm not thinking of brand new releases, but usually prestige releases with at least 5 years' age on them. Sydney show results for screwcap-sealed Tahbilk 1927 Marsanne's 2003-2004, for instance. Golds one year, nothing the next, that kind of thing.
Such as, 2011's trophy winner only picks up a bronze in 2012 (Wolf Blass 2006 black label)...

I do understand the difficulty in judging, but this whole "context" problem really makes you question the value of shows at all - even from the 'improve the breed' perspective.

I always think 'it'd be great to be a show judge', and then I actualy realise I'd have to taste every damn thing in the class...
But I do like the chance to taste through the whole damn catalogue - just wish I didn't have to squeeze it into a bit over 3 hours!
cheers,
GG

[dlo]

Graeme,

Your post highlights the indisputable fallability and frailty of the human palate, and with due respect to all wine judges over the years whom, I'm sure, approach their task with the best of intentions, the obvious inadequacies of judging so many wines in so many classes in so short a time.