The Auswine Forum

JIMMY WATSON TROPHY GOES TO A WINE
Philip White
02 January 2013

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2013/01/j ... -wine.html

An interesting ramble about the checkered history of the Jimmy Watson, and the many attempts to fully exploit a win - if you thought the Rosemount Traditional scenario was a bit dodgy back in the early naughties, just wait until you read about the Mildara Classic "twins" of the eighties!

Cheers,
Ian

Excellent article. I agree the Jimmy Watson Trophy is now a joke.

Great article. I especially liked
The meaning of the Jimmy went completely awry the following year. Max won it again – with a barrel sample of his 1965 Grange! Drinking a one-year-old barrel sample of Grange is more like sitting down to a bowl of ground-up road metal than slurping away at an easy young jug wine in a bistro. Sure, the wine may have been the best young red in the entire Royal Melbourne Wine Show, but it was never meant to be guzzled like a jug of Beaujolais. This strangeness was reinforced two years later, when Max and the Magill mob won it again with the ’67 Grange.

But I'm not too sure about
A week or so back, Robert Parker Jr., the Maryland critic who was singularly responsible for our obsession with those gloopy alcoholic jambombs, packed up and sold his lucrative Wine Advocate business. It is indeed the end of an era.

Parker has sold a "substantial interest in the Wine Advocate to a trio of Singapore-based investors who will take over its day-to-day financial " but I seriously doubt that he or The Wine Advocate will disappear entirely. Much more likely that TWA will move more into Asia and have an even greater influence on the markets being sought by Aussie wine makers.

Mike

Whitey is at it again ... love the bugger

rambles even more on twitter !!

He may "ramble", but I really enjoy his articles and he shows real passion for Australian wine.

As for the show circuit, it is a bit of a joke. My general rule is, if the bottle is covered in trophy stickers, I normally avoid it.

Cheers
Ian

VAT 1 is covered in stickers .

Australians and Australian winemakers love show awards....There are some that won't enter shows any longer (there is absolutely no reason for them to) but you still see a lot of good wine entered at a lot of these shows...

I did say "normally". There will always be the exception to the rule.

Some of the wine I've tasted that has been covered in stickers, has been very ordinary. When an average $10 to $15 bottle has stickers from some obscure wine show on it, does it mean the quality of the wine is high, or the quality of the wine at that particular show was just low? There are way too many shows to regard the majority of them as serious. This is also hurting the reputation of the big shows as well. A wine marketer is not going to enter a wine they know is not top notch into a show where they well know it will not do well against superior competition. But the competition may be a lot lower at said obscure wine show and hence the sticker on the bottle with a Gold Medal from the Royal Birdsville Wine Show.

Cheers
Ian

dlo wrote:Excellent article. I agree the Jimmy Watson Trophy is now a joke.

Especially David after Jamieson's Run and Robertson's Well got the gong

Cheers
Craig

ticklenow1 wrote:I did say "normally". There will always be the exception to the rule.

Some of the wine I've tasted that has been covered in stickers, has been very ordinary. When an average $10 to $15 bottle has stickers from some obscure wine show on it, does it mean the quality of the wine is high, or the quality of the wine at that particular show was just low? There are way too many shows to regard the majority of them as serious. This is also hurting the reputation of the big shows as well. A wine marketer is not going to enter a wine they know is not top notch into a show where they well know it will not do well against superior competition. But the competition may be a lot lower at said obscure wine show and hence the sticker on the bottle with a Gold Medal from the Royal Birdsville Wine Show.

Cheers
Ian

While I don't think awards are an indication of great quality...Wine that has won several awards is probably not total plonk. I don't think wine that has won a trophy or anything like that was necessarily the best wine at any given show..but they all have been competent. Obviously the bigger the show the less likely we are to see exceptions to this...(where the trophy winner IS complete plonk).

It also doesn't mean that wine entered into a show and didn't win anything wasn't necessarily (IMO) the best wine at the show or a very good wine....

I don't buy wines based on any awards..I don't care what awards a wine has won...but I won't hold that against them either...To me they're absolutely neutral.

The only wineries (In Australia anyways) that don't send what they think is good wine to shows are ones with an established following...ones that basically don't need the extra marketing. There are exceptions to this but there are some very good wineries that send their wine to shows because they just need the extra coverage..or it is a matter of pride with them (or something like that in the case of VAT1).

Maybe established and highly regarded don't enter shows because they don't need the marketing.. but I would say it's because they have more to lose.

Panda 9D wrote:Maybe established and highly regarded don't enter shows because they don't need the marketing.. but I would say it's because they have more to lose.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Panda 9D wrote:Maybe established and highly regarded don't enter shows because they don't need the marketing.. but I would say it's because they have more to lose.

Could be....but we still see Penfolds doing very random entries into a lot of shows...with some of their higher end stuff...they certainly don't mind not winning...

I'm not sure other wines/wineries have anything to lose..their following is there regardless of how they did in a show..I'm sure the logic makes sense but only if feel the show results mean anything and since most of the people that follow these wines don't care about awards, they wouldn't care if these wines didn't wine them...

You might think..well, wouldn't it prop up some other wine? Maybe..but Penfolds does it randomly and it doesn't seem to give any leverage to any other wine..doesn't seem to be hurting them at all...

Personally I don't think they do it because it costs money and resources...and it means less wine for their customers. If you have a very solid following, would you rather sell all your wine (minus whatever you want to hold back) to your loyal or potentially new customers?...Or do you want to spend money, time and bottles of your wine entering it into a show that won't do anything for you even if you win?

I think my only point with these shows is...while I don't think using them will pick you the best wine at the show or is a guarantee you'll like it...Most wine that has won something is competent..and I wouldn't discount a wine purely because it has show awards..I know if I was making wine I'd certainly try to find whatever extra things help market my wine (unless I already had too many customers)....and awards do that. .

I agree, a gold medal doesn't put me off a wine.

If your $600 Hill of Grace is unanimously whipped by a $40 newcomer... that's bad. No getting around it. Wines that have established followings, yet avoid the show circuit, are still marketed constantly around the world. Samples sent to countless critics, trade tastings, meet the winemaker dinners etc. etc. Almost every kind of marketing is done except the kind where it's put in a competitive situation. There are always exceptions but the best way to keep the title is to not accept any challengers

Panda 9D wrote:I agree, a gold medal doesn't put me off a wine.

If your $600 Hill of Grace is unanimously whipped by a $40 newcomer... that's bad. No getting around it. Wines that have established followings, yet avoid the show circuit, are still marketed constantly around the world. Samples sent to countless critics, trade tastings, meet the winemaker dinners etc. etc. Almost every kind of marketing is done except the kind where it's put in a competitive situation. There are always exceptions but the best way to keep the title is to not accept any challengers

Could be..but no one is going to care that HoG won or didn't win a particular show. I used to think this was the case but then I see Penfolds enter in their 707 or some other wine into a show..and it doesn't really matter that it did well or didn't do well..and no one seems to care... So what would be the benefit of entering your wine into a show? Are you going to get more buyers as a result? No..so instead you're giving away bottles and spending time and money..for..nothing.

Yeah, alright.

Polymer wrote:Could be..but no one is going to care that HoG won or didn't win a particular show. I used to think this was the case but then I see Penfolds enter in their 707 or some other wine into a show..and it doesn't really matter that it did well or didn't do well..and no one seems to care... So what would be the benefit of entering your wine into a show? Are you going to get more buyers as a result? No..so instead you're giving away bottles and spending time and money..for..nothing.

I disagree.

Wine nerds may not care about trophies but the punters in Dan Murphys do.

Wine nerds are only a small percentage of the wine drinking population, especially when it comes to Penfolds. It's the mass market where the big wineries make their money and if a punter who doesn't know goes into a store, sees two wines at same price, but one is covered in trophies, honestly which one do you think they will buy?

Penfolds also need to maintain their image for the Chinese market.

Yes trophies are marketing fluff, but why do you think these companies have a marketing dept in the first place?

You're not going to win the arguement Odyssey, even if you are right...

odyssey wrote:

Polymer wrote:Could be..but no one is going to care that HoG won or didn't win a particular show. I used to think this was the case but then I see Penfolds enter in their 707 or some other wine into a show..and it doesn't really matter that it did well or didn't do well..and no one seems to care... So what would be the benefit of entering your wine into a show? Are you going to get more buyers as a result? No..so instead you're giving away bottles and spending time and money..for..nothing.

I disagree.

Wine nerds may not care about trophies but the punters in Dan Murphys do.

Wine nerds are only a small percentage of the wine drinking population, especially when it comes to Penfolds. It's the mass market where the big wineries make their money and if a punter who doesn't know goes into a store, sees two wines at same price, but one is covered in trophies, honestly which one do you think they will buy?

Penfolds also need to maintain their image for the Chinese market.

Yes trophies are marketing fluff, but why do you think these companies have a marketing dept in the first place?

I don't think you read the earlier parts of the thread....I'm saying trophys and medals are important for those wines that don't already have an established reputation and following...For those that do, like say, Rockford Basket Press, they're not going to enter into a wine show...is it because they're afraid of not winning a medal? No...it is because there is no value in doing it.

For those wines that don't have that following..of course it is going to help..that's why they do it....

As far as Penfolds....I doubt they do it for marketing because their higher end wines tend to not do all that well and they're not going to put a bronze medal sticker on a 707....

Maybe I'm not getting something...Seems pretty simple to me..

Wine that needs/wants the extra marketing enters into shows.

Wines that don't need the extra marketing (the crowd that likes awards isn't their target market) don't enter wines into shows.

There are some exceptions to this...eg. Penfolds randomly sprinkles entries but I don't know why...The awards they do win they don't bother putting on their wine..and they don't seem to care if their higher end wine doesn't wine or even medal highly...

This is just my opinion and the only way it all seems to make sense to me but if someone has a better theory I'm definitely open to that...

Polymer wrote:This is just my opinion and the only way it all seems to make sense to me but if someone has a better theory I'm definitely open to that...

No, you actually aren't.

Really? Maybe one without holes in the explanation is a better way of putting it...

Going to the "They're afraid to lose". What are they afraid of exactly? That they won't win? Will that hurt their business? And why would these wines that already sell through want an award? Do they need the marketing? What would be their benefit?

I've given very specific examples of why I don't think this is the case...do you have some that would be? I mean, tell me Callaghan doesn't enter because he said it would hurt his business or he is afraid to lose and that's good enough....But I guess because I disagree with examples I'm not open to other ideas...Nice...

I wouldn't rule wine maker ego out of the equation either.

Eg...I sell out of my wine every year....say it's langtons classified etc...I get lots of wine snob/customer love and adoration and everyone accepts that I'm basically very good at making wine.
So all of a sudden, a few random 'know it all types' are going to taste my precious drop, which I've invested so much love, care and attention and expertise into, taste it among 150+ others, swirl it for a few seconds, not even swallow it, and then turn around and say it's not the best/ a great wine...?
No, sod the wine shows, the system's crap, and besides I make wine purely for my customers, and they already know I'm the king.

fwiw...I'm not having a dig here, and imagine I would be equally sensitive if in a similar position.

Wine shows are about volume, too. Why enter something in a show if you've only got 1000 cases to sell? Especially if you've got a decent reputation already. (Perhaps an exception might be your local show you want to support.) Also, you've got to think you're wines got half a stylistic chance of winning something. Most of the Hunter's best reds don't go much further than the Hunter Valley wine show. They certainly don't go to Adelaide or Brisbane or Melbourne.

I look at the Sydney show, and I see big entries from the big commercial business; both list and family businesses. It's about volume. Maybe a few makers enter a few wines in some specialist classes - since the Sydney show has 'Named Vineyard' classes there are all kinds of interesting wines turning up there that you wouldn't expect - to benchmark themselves in the old tradition, but that's all it would be.

I think for all the established boutique producers it tends to be a case of have nothing to gain by entering or even winning.
cheers,
GG

Michael: Yeah, I can definitely see that being the case.

GG: Agree. There is just nothing to be gained by entering for those with an established following....and the ones that do, do so for some individual reason...like Tyrrells...Not sure why they keep entering VAT 1 other than Semillon doesn't have enough of a following..or now it is just a matter of pride trying to tack on another 50 awards to the bottle...Or Penfolds which randomly enters higher end wines at random shows...for who knows what reason...