2018 Sydney Royal Wine Show results

[Sean]

deleted

[bdellabosca]

I was going to say "no", except just remembered I bought a dozen of the 2017 Rieslingfreak No 3 last year... had one bottle so far and no regrets as it's a good qpr riesling but not in any way mind blowing (that said, I am a red wine drinker so not the right person to comment on riesling quality).

[GraemeG]

The Bin A has always been pretty good I must say - and was often served at the Show lunch as a trophy winner of some variety. I'm often surprised at the trophy winners - on the few occasions I've been to the full show tastings pre-lunch I've usually ignored the trophy-winner in favor of what I consider more interesting wines. And indeed, rarely I have I found the trophy winners especially outstanding; sometimes I even struggle with the rankings of - especially - some of the gold medal winners vs the rest. Although, often I can see why judges mark down some otherwise big-name wines.
I've never bought something just because it won a trophy - or at least not for 20+ years since I wised up!
cheers,
Graeme

[Sean]

deleted

[TiggerK]

I was going to start bagging wine shows, inconsistent, pointless, how could you follow this crap etc, but must say that list of top golds shows the judges at this one at least have some reasonable taste, at least in their white wines, all very consistent solid performers there. Fully agree they are too ho hum for the growing movement of younger wine buyers which lean more towards the 'modern' producers many of whom take a different approach to the traditional 'Roseworthy Rules', some really interesting daring stuff and it can be very good (Latta and Luke Lambert come to mind, amongst many others). But no surprises there, trends come and go.

I doubt there are too many using wine shows as buying indicators, but of course the shiny gold badges will sway many a big shop buyer over the wine next to it, I feel that's the raison d'etre of wine shows these days.

[GraemeG]

Well, some thoughts then. At Sydney at least, the white trophy winners are uniformly better than the reds. The entry list is often surprisingly limited, at least on the occasions in last decade or so that I've raked through the full entry list. There are a number of regulars who practically carpet-bomb the show - and, being mostly NSW-based wineries I guess that's fair enough. You can see it yourselves on the website lists I presume.
And because there are a few quite outstanding wines frequently entering, it's no surprise to see them often on the trophy lists. The fact that the Tahbilk 1927 Marsanne picks up so many trophies is a tribute to the judges as much as the wine! Still, putting myself in Tahbilk's shoes - unless they're having trouble selling it, why bother entering? It's not exactly a mainstream wine, with dozens of comparable examples from around the country. And surely they're not trying to flog 50,000 cases of the stuff! So for them it's a 'we thrashed the easybeats' exercise.
Maybe I understand better Tyrrell's constant entering of Vat 1 pretty much across the country; it's good that they obviously feel they're promoting the grape and the region in the face of fashion (not just themselves), and the wine is one of the country's best in my opinion.

Look, at least trophy-winning - even mere gold winners - wines are rarely duds. But they're hardly a guarantee of something brilliant - and even less so if you consider cellaring potential. Be selective! incidentally, that list of Sean's could have been assembled from the SRWS any time over the last decade; those wineries (even the Vic ones) are resolute regulars at the Sydney show at least.

And let me guess - Morris Old Premium won the muscat / topaque classes, yes? Again, don't know why they enter. Although, I must say, when attending the lunch, I'm awfully glad they do!
cheers,
Graeme

[Polymer]

Look, at least trophy-winning - even mere gold winners - wines are rarely duds.

This...While it doesn't mean it was a great wine..or even the best wine..or even a very interesting wine...for someone that needs help deciding what to buy, very rarely are these winners duds...which for most wine drinkers is a big win... Without some other great advice from someone who knows your likes/dislikes, I don't think this is a bad way for most wine drinkers to select their wine...and if it helps people try wine from a different region or try wine from a new producer, I think that's great..

[Sean]

deleted

[Red Bigot]

"You would hope the judges had checked the show samples after awarding the Golds and before they awarded the Trophy. The bottle photo on the Trophy Winners page shows “Trade Sample Only” on the front label.

This is something the JWT was panned for. Now the “finalists” go through an audit process with other bottles being supplied to check against the show sample. (Yeah I know, they also changed the entry criteria to the two previous vintages so the wines had been actually bottled.)

The reality is the wine we buy isn’t going to be exactly the same as the show wine, just because of volume of production, bottle variation, etc. But it should be representative of what is being sold to consumers, shouldn’t it?"

All reputable shows (most of them) have programs to check commercially bought samples against show samples, although only a small proportion obviously. But these activities are publicised and known to exhibitors.

But show results are in general a very poor way to guide wine buying decisions.

Re "dodgy critics", you should all be subscribers to The Wine Front, they are the best in Aus, with interaction with subscribers making it all real.

[Ozzie W]

But show results are in general a very poor way to guide wine buying decisions.

There are certainly much better ways to make decisions as to what to buy, but when a wine noob is in a typical retail situation where all they have are rows and rows of wines and store staff which are clueless about wine, the wine show medal stickers are still better than nothing.

[Michael McNally]

But show results are in general a very poor way to guide wine buying decisions.

There are certainly much better ways to make decisions as to what to buy, but when a wine noob is in a typical retail situation where all they have are rows and rows of wines and store staff which are clueless about wine, the wine show medal stickers are still better than nothing.

This is certainly more of a guide when a wine has medals from more than one show. One panel of judges can easily come round to the opinion that a particular wine deserves a gong for a range of reasons. Multiple panels of judges at different shows saying the wine is medal quality is a better indicator, and the more reputable/bigger wine shows have more moderation to contend with so the cream generally rises to the top.

Better than a single high random score from an overenthusiastic reviewer (not Winefront).

Cheers

Michael

[Polymer]

But show results are in general a very poor way to guide wine buying decisions.

Re "dodgy critics", you should all be subscribers to The Wine Front, they are the best in Aus, with interaction with subscribers making it all real.

It is a poor way? Honestly, unless you're aligned with The Wine Front, it is no worse than them...For most non wine geek drinkers, it is just as good as any other method...You're not going to necessarily get a great wine but you won't get a bad one...

I think it is funny that people poo poo wine shows yet they'll follow wine critics when they're basically the same thing...

[Sean]

deleted

[swirler]

But show results are in general a very poor way to guide wine buying decisions.

Re "dodgy critics", you should all be subscribers to The Wine Front, they are the best in Aus, with interaction with subscribers making it all real.

It is a poor way? Honestly, unless you're aligned with The Wine Front, it is no worse than them...For most non wine geek drinkers, it is just as good as any other method...You're not going to necessarily get a great wine but you won't get a bad one...

I think it is funny that people poo poo wine shows yet they'll follow wine critics when they're basically the same thing...

This.

[Ian S]

But show results are in general a very poor way to guide wine buying decisions.

There are certainly much better ways to make decisions as to what to buy, but when a wine noob is in a typical retail situation where all they have are rows and rows of wines and store staff which are clueless about wine, the wine show medal stickers are still better than nothing.

What would be more educational though, rather than a gold and two silver medals "That must be good right?", would be:

Entered: 37 wine shows. Awarded one gold, 2 silver, 2 bronze, and 32 'unclassified'. "Well put like that, I think I'll put the bottle back!"

The best thing for a noob is to taste what's on the tasting table, or preferably find a local tasting group. In doing so they may find that the lauded wines aren't to their taste, but some genuinely under the radar wines excite. In doing so they may end up loving the wines that win gongs, or hate them, but it will be that way round, rather than false pride in having so many decorated / illustrious wines in their cellar (and I like many here will recognise that in myself )

Beyond that, it's good to read notes and opinions, but recognise that they are always opinions. An appealing TN can spark a voyage of discovery, or result in a dead end.

[Ozzie W]

What would be more educational though, rather than a gold and two silver medals "That must be good right?", would be:

Entered: 37 wine shows. Awarded one gold, 2 silver, 2 bronze, and 32 'unclassified'. "Well put like that, I think I'll put the bottle back!"

I agree. But the wine producers wouldn't have a bar of that. Unfortunately, the stickers are much more about marketing than telling the truth.

The best thing for a noob is to taste what's on the tasting table, or preferably find a local tasting group. In doing so they may find that the lauded wines aren't to their taste, but some genuinely under the radar wines excite. In doing so they may end up loving the wines that win gongs, or hate them, but it will be that way round, rather than false pride in having so many decorated / illustrious wines in their cellar (and I like many here will recognise that in myself )

Beyond that, it's good to read notes and opinions, but recognise that they are always opinions. An appealing TN can spark a voyage of discovery, or result in a dead end.

The problem is that at supermarket wine stores there are no tasting tables, no tasting notes, no staff with an understanding of wine, etc. Most noobs would make a decision based solely on the bottle label (front & back) and any wine show stickers. There's no other information in store they can use to make an informed decision.

Furthermore, not all wine noobs want to learn more about wine. Wine may not be something that really interests them. They are buying wine only because they need to bring a bottle to a BBQ/dinner/party/etc. It's no different to buying orange juice for many.

[Gary W]

Just had a little read of this and offer a few comments, some of them self-promoting, and some to address misconceptions.

When wines like 2017 Tyrrell's Vat 47 Chardonnay and 2013 Vat 1 Semillon get no medal, there's still something of a problem either with process or judging. Same with 2014 Mount Pleasant Rosehill getting 82 points (or whatever) at Qld. The trophy wines are often good, some are sweet and commercial, Cabernet often free of tannin, some just plain style hunting. Anyway, they''ll keep going as long as winemakers love 'free travel' and dinners courtesy of ag societies, eh? Gosh.

With reference to dodgy critics...well, some are, yes, very much so, but I talk here about The Wine Front only. I can't control what others do.

Nearly all my big tastings are done blind, some smaller ones at home, often not. I rarely go on 'free trips', avoid nearly all launches, lunches and largesse. Simply don't have time for them, and they are not time-effective either. And, mainly, the bore me to tears. We don't take money for consulting, or events, from wineries.
With respect to 'free' samples, well we couldn't afford to cover all the wines we do, though I often go out and buy wines for review too. The wine shows get 'free samples' too, of course. The samples are also a logistcal nightmare. 15 dozen into our tasting room in the first two days of this week alone. We spit the wines, give them away, pour them down the sink often. I mainly drink amaro, gin, beer for fun. The 'free wine' thing may sound wonderful, but it's just the tools of our trade.

In terms of rating wine, we have the consumer in mind first and foremost. When someone goes out to spend their hard-earned on the back of one of my reviews, it's front of mind that I've described the wine as best I can, and it's keenly important that I'm seen as reliable, and that they enjoy it. Can't emphasise that enough. I've NEVER inflated a score to get on shelf-talkers, or to muscle out other reviews on retail newsletters. Ever. You'll see on most retailer emails that TWF are a few points lower than others, when multiple reviews are quoted. Lastly, we have right of reply on TWF, and if you don't' like it, many let us know. We take it on the chin, sometimes argue, but accept that wine is an individual thing. All you can do is be consistent, and reliable, and to build trust with your audience. That's the most important thing to me.

As an aside, I've been blacklisted by plenty of wineries for giving them a touch up. Well, that's a Darwinian process as far as I'm concerned

One more thing: wine critics are NOT the same as wine shows. You are following an individual with a critic. With wine shows, it's a moving parade of randoms. And there's still fuck all personal accountability for results.

Hope this helps a little.

[Sean]

deleted

[Sean]

deleted

[Craig(NZ)]

Just had a little read of this and offer a few comments, some of them self-promoting, and some to address misconceptions.

One more thing: wine critics are NOT the same as wine shows. You are following an individual with a critic. With wine shows, it's a moving parade of randoms. And there's still fuck all personal accountability for results.

Hope this helps a little.

Maybe off thread topic a little but I worry about the direction that critical acclaim is taking as well, and the workings behind the scenes.

The competition between critics seems to be driven by the actual statistic that for every 5 critics there is only 1 person outside the industry that actually gives a f&*^. There are in reality very few of us forum reading trainspotters around. We are a rare and usual bunch. "Normal" folk just don't give a rats. Column inches devoted to wine in written publications is spiralling to the floor and has been for many years. 100,000x the people would rather read about who is screwing who on Love Island vs Best 2013 Barossa Syrah.

A few I have sniggered at and given a prod to lately shows the business, the politics and the "I will scratch your back if you scratch mine" disease is alive and well in the world of wine. "Send me samples or you are on the out" mixed with being just plain slack seems to be rife.

1. Winesearcher.com list of the Top 10 Wines in the World. 4/10 are Napa Cabernets apparently. No Germany, no Italy, no Spain, no southern hemisphere, no red bordeaux. Maths backs that up you know. You can't argue with maths. Or is it that maths highlights critical bias? All those Napa 100/100's are plain to see. Give me a break, Bayesian Averages aka "not my fault", "must be 'right'"

2. The Real Review Certificate of Excellence. Apparently the top 181 wineries in NZ do not include Bell Hill, Stonyridge, Puriri Hills, Rippon or Cloudy Bay. "They didn't send me samples this year", "a proprietary algorithm". aka "not my fault", "must be 'right'". You want me to take this list seriously? But wineries can display a plaque if they pay a subscription and for an award pack to be sent to your door. And don't quote us unless you join up

3. The new "New Zealand Wine of the Year" Awards. Misleading title for a wine show where only a subset of wineries enter. I have run tasting where I have put trophy a varietal winner in blind vs classics that don't play in shows. Trophy winner dead last. "But really not my fault if xyz choses not to enter my cool show"? Again cash for gongs. Call it "Trophy winner from XYZ wine show", but don't call it "NZ Wine of the Year"

4. To me the best picture of fine wine in NZ is the Air NZ fine wine selection. I would change a handful of the selections, but overall it is a good effort. I like the way the selections are made before invite to participate. It takes most of the random out of it. Not sure of the behind the scenes politics. Even this has been described to me as an old boys club, but to me at least the results are competent. [url]https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-releas ... d-for-2017[/url]

[Polymer]

One more thing: wine critics are NOT the same as wine shows. You are following an individual with a critic. With wine shows, it's a moving parade of randoms. And there's still fuck all personal accountability for results.

Again, for people that don't have an alignment with a particular critic..it is exactly the same. Personal accountability? Maybe you feel TWF does..do you feel your peers do? Not necessarily according to what you just said...

With reference to dodgy critics...well, some are, yes, very much so

Not to mention you have people at TWF that have done the wine show judge scene....

But if you're claiming there is really any difference for someone wanting to get advice on a wine and looking at show results or wine scores from a critic, that's a stretch...for a vast majority of people, they're exactly the same...again, for people that can actually align with a particular critic, the information can be more valuable (But that isn't a majority of people who subscribe to any given critic).

I do think people do find new producers by following a critic and maybe daring to try something from their recommendation...but don't people do that with Show Trophies as well? What is the difference? Nothing really....And it isn't even a guarantee those people will like the wine..in fact, it takes years for people to get the confidence to say, this got a 97 from X? WTF were they smoking when they tried this? We know the result is the same because when notable Trophies get given out, those wines tend to sell better if not sell out and spike on the secondary market..replace trophy with big score...same thing..

To be fair, I do think a single critic is more consistent then show results..you get better results and consistency across a range of wines...But if you just look at the top results from a show it is the same...and probably the same rate of "Wow" and "WTF" results from both...They've achieved the same "attract new buyers" result...I'm not saying Trophy winning wines are fantastic..but they're not going to be bad...and I can say that statement about any critics higher than normal scores...

[Gary W]

Personal accountability in reference to having your name on a result, rather than being, more or less, anonymous.

There's no link between MIke having done wine shows (past tense), and dodgy critics. Fail to see the connection there.

[phillisc]

Umm, not sure where this thread is going.
Contemplating purchasing a ticket to the RAHS wine show here in Adelaide next month or might see if someone in the trade can spot me one...anyway this show always throws up interesting results.
What's the bet that it might go either way, Bleasdale for example, the current darling of critics, judges and awards with a $15 red, that may win everything...or nothing.
I will say one thing, thanks Gary for steering me in the direction on both Marius and Standish. Until 2 years ago had not heard of Roger's wines and only a fleeting memory of Dan in the time he spent at Rockford(??). Until 2 years ago had not ever purchased wine from either winery, have 12 bottles of each in the cellar now. Until this year have never tasted wine from either, but have now and wow. Yes a critic influenced me to seek some out, but I guess proof is in the pudding now, would not matter what a critic said, I 'll be doing my best to get a few more next vintage.

Cheers craig

[Polymer]

Personal accountability in reference to having your name on a result, rather than being, more or less, anonymous.

There's no link between MIke having done wine shows (past tense), and dodgy critics. Fail to see the connection there.

They publish which judges did each category (or used to I thought) so while yes, their name isn't attached to the Trophy sticker, does that really matter?
Do you believe they're not taking their job seriously? I don't think show judging is perfect..far from it...and you can say they're looking for generic "good" as their criteria but that's no different to listening to a critic that likes something a bit outside the norm or likes the generic "good".

I'm not linking Mike to dodgy critics at all...he's definitely not that. I probably quoted this wrong (I referred to what you said below what I typed as my reference although when I look at it now, it looks wrong). My apologies if it looks like I'm suggesting that...

My mention of TWF people in shows was basically...You have people doing shows (or used to), so it isn't like everyone there is a poor judge of wine...

I'm also not implying that people with a bit more knowledge don't get more out of a critic than a wine show....but for the general public it is all the same...Shelf Talker with a point score (so someone who knows wine must've liked it) or a Trophy...it all provides that safety net for people who don't really know what to buy....it is no different than asking the employee of a wine store because unless you're at one with someone that really knows their stuff and unless you can describe to them in good detail what you want (which doesn't apply to these buyers) then you won't get anything other than being pointed in the direction of a "good" solid wine....I'm sure you've heard this from a lot of less informed wine drinkers when asked what they like.."not sweet...fruity..not too dry (because they think dry = lots of tannins), smooth..."

[swirler]

Agree, Polymer. I don't see why everything is black and white. Shows bad. JH bad. Some others good. It's all just opinion.

[Ian S]

Personally I do take leads from tasting notes, be they read in a book, or from Cellartracker. If what they write sounds appealing/interesting, then I might be inspired to give it a go and try a bottle, especially if seeking to explore that region/style.

The better they can explain what they experienced, and what is distinctive about the wine the better. Good clear and unpretentious writing counts for a lot.

On the flip side...
Fruit salad descriptors, especially with a plethora of obscure or overly precise references definitely put me off the author, and hence less likely to take their opinion seriously. Likewise openly obscure references detract greatly e.g. the legendary 'swooping paving slabs' reference from a UK critic (no, we had no idea what she was on about either).
Perhaps my greatest distaste is for the arrogant/self-aggrandising notes where it's their opinion of 'quality' that is more important than actually describing the wine itself. These are the sort of critics that want to bedazzle their readers, convincing them they are mere novices in the presence of a master taster, and should not form their own judgement but instead place their full trust in said (and self-proclaimed) master taster. Robert Parker was the poster child for such an approach, and in business terms was a massive success for doing so. However if business success was the true marker of credibility then Casella would be the grand name in Australian wine! Many previously enthusiastic followers became quite resentful once they started drinking what was in their cellars.

[swirler]

"drank with JT and Ben at China Palace. Amazing seafood!"

[Sean]

deleted

[Matt@5453]

I probably should have put a smiley after my “dodgy” critics line. Sorry about that.

I had a look through the catalogues for the last few Sydney wine shows. There have been a number of wine writers or “freelance consultants” on the judging panels.

Toni Paterson MW, who writes for Gourmet Wine Traveller and Real Reviews among other publications, has been a regular judge at the last three Sydney wine shows. Other names like Dave Brookes and Tyson Stelzer have been there too.

Mike Bennie got the gig at the Melbourne wine show at least a couple of times, ie. 2012 and 2013. Others at that show have included Sarah Abbott MW (UK), Tim White, Dave Brookes, Philip Rich, Nick Stock and Jamie Goode (UK).

It would be interesting to find out what any of these people might have learned from the process. Did it improve the way they assess a wine? Did it encourage them to be more systematic in their method? Are they better “tasters”?

I remembered Jamie Goode writing about doing that in 2012 (and a bit about the process) on his Wine Anorak blog. If you want to put some faces to the names, take a look at this -

[url]http://www.wineanorak.com/wineblog/australi ... -wine-show[/url]

There is a mix of others from across the industry at these wine shows, incl. winemakers, retailers, marketing people and sommeliers. A number of those on the panels would have gone through a lot more rigorous training as wine judges than others. Some of them are regulars on the show circuit with quite a bit of experience.

So I don’t think it’s about attacking individuals or anything like that.

The point I was making is that the show system has changed over the years. Some aspects to it have been improved or might be a work in progress. One change I have noticed though is the widening of the selection of people to be judges.

It is about bringing in “fresh blood” or a wider range of experience to the judging panels. It is also about the promotional side to the wine shows, which in the case of bringing in wine writers is kind of obvious. They might have expertise in their own field, but they are generally not RAS trained judges.

It goes both ways, however, some are on a learning curve with this stuff while others offer a lot of expertise and professionalism.

Anyway it is ridiculous to write off the worth of show results or those who are involved in the wine shows because of that.

Sean, your scope is narrow. Wine shows are a big business, both domestically and internationally. There is a huge amount of revenue generated.
Australian Wines have had huge success on the international scene for many years, without any Aussie judges, putting producers and wine regions on the international map. Love to hear your thoughts on this , and the importance of producers to benchmark their wines?

[Ian S]

Is there still an ongoing battle 'for hearts and minds' being driven by the show chairs, either championing bigger or more delicate styles? It seemed that was a big motivator for people to feel they were influencers (albeit perhaps to the detriment of differing opinions)