The Auswine Forum

Perhaps some of you like me get mail out from The Real Review (Huon Hooke, Bob Campbell etc). I see that they have just released a so called Top Wineries of Australia List.

[url]https://www.therealreview.com/2020/06/12/the ... alia-2020/[/url]

Admirable, but so flawed, as it is just a measure of wineries on the basis of wines they have submitted to The Real Review for review. What should "Top Wineries" actually mean, rather than just marketing bs for a web site?

Absolutely agree Malcolm, so flawed in so many ways.
What disclosure does a commercial operation like RR have, apart from subscription are there paid cash for comment from wineries, other income sources?
Are we actually talking physical wineries/CDs, winemakers/family history or the wines themselves.

Giving Tyrrell's a vote for a wine they made 6 years ago

Cheers craig

I saw the lists (Australia and NZ) just before coming to this thread. Fair comment above. I just shrugged and moved on ...

James Halliday has been doing this for years and years. It's no different to that and just as flawed.

As for the winner, I can't disagree enough. Cullen (reds) one of the most disappointing wines I encounter when tasting blind. It rarely lives up to its hype.

Ozzie W wrote:James Halliday has been doing this for years and years. It's no different to that and just as flawed.

As for the winner, I can't disagree enough. Cullen (reds) one of the most disappointing wines I encounter when tasting blind. It rarely lives up to its hype.

Don't disagree regarding Sir James and I have the same view regarding the winner, I was totally underwhelmed with Cullen getting their top spot. Just means their wines got the best scores from TRR. How many would we rate more highly?

No comment to make on Cullen, but no dispute here on Tyrrrel'ls, Clonakilla, and Lake's Folly making the top 10

But folks, they have a genuine "proprietary algorithm" to determine "certificate recipients"

"If you've received a Top Wineries Certificate, congratulations! Learn more about our promotional tools and make the most of your awards."

Says it all doesn't it...

given the authors, its no surprise it is a load of crap.
love the way Moss Wood rated 71, yet their flagship wine is miles better than the flagship wine of the number 1 winery lol.

The first year this Top Wineries of NZ list was put out I absolutely slated it on social media. Part of the issue was quite a number of totally "missing" big names. Part of it was the high number of brand new wineries, that had only a couple of wines reviewed, that ranked highly on the list. Two wineries I highlighted as missing then, are actually number 1 and number 2 in this years list. What can I say, I am an influencer.

Although it is actually quite nice to see one of my pet wineries at number one this year, I agree it is a flawed list. However, I think it is a lot better than the first list he did two years ago.

My main eye-brow-raisers this year are Mills Reef sitting at 17 while Neudorf is at 87? Valli at 90? Stonyridge is nowhere to be seen. I suspect there is something a bit sour with the relationship there somewhere, somehow, not quite sure. He did do a set of reviews years ago with stupidly low scores, I wonder....though Stonyridge is happy to quote Bob prominently on their website, so...i dunno

"By entry only" is always going to end up with a subset, and yes it's a commercially driven thing. We aren't all that stupid, but at the same time it gives everyone a discussion point. That is what any list on any subject does. Where does Kane Williamson sit vs Alan Border on an all time best Test Batsman list? It will always be an opinion vs another, there will always be a discussion around "the statistics are meaningless because of a,b or c"

Allowing for the fact that all our palates, preferences, biases and tasting experiences are different, I can't see too much to get overly dismissive of in the NZ list. Would mine be different? Absolutely! But that is wine for you

sjw_11 wrote:But folks, they have a genuine "proprietary algorithm" to determine "certificate recipients"

"If you've received a Top Wineries Certificate, congratulations! Learn more about our promotional tools and make the most of your awards."

Says it all doesn't it...

Probably a similar algorithm that Winesearcher used to determine 3 of the top 10 greatest wines in the world are Napa Cabernets

"Proprietary Algorithms" are a problem from my point of view, because if we don't know the selection criteria then the list has little value.
Mostly these sorts of lists are put out to get some attention. They'll be hoping that translates to more subscribers to the website and they'll also be hoping that wineries are reminded that they have to send samples to get on the list. In short, they are fishing for business and content

It's all subjective. It's personal opinion. Personally I think that list is a joke, but that's just my opinion and we all know that opinions are like ars......, we all have one.

Cheers
Ian

We can all debate relative positions, and as such any list can be merely an opinion. Good for healthy debating.

However when the field is restricted to those supplying wines to the organisation, then it edges towards 'pay to play'.

I have little issue with organisations reviewing what is sent to them, as long as it is just genuine review samples, then it is a reasonable compromise. However when making statements about what wines / wineries they think are the 'best' in their geography, then ignoring those that don't play the samples / shows game harms their credibility.

Wine magazine and especially Decanter were awful examples of this (and probably still are), proclaiming the 'World's best red / white / wine' etc. when their selection was from a mostly commercial/industrial selection submitted. We even saw headlines that a local winery (on a regular cycling loop for us) 'Winbirri' had won a 'best wine in the world' gong. It turns out it was merely 'best budget white' (IIRC £12 or under). It's a decent wine, from a grape that does well in our climate (Bacchus), but even the 'correct' claim is a nonsense. Still it was commercially useful, to the degree that they almost immediately had pre-orders for all of the next two vintages of it. It's also useful for the region, one that feels better suited to viticulture than many places in the UK, with lower rainfall and often warmer as well, plus with the added advantage of still being relatively rural. We've since tasted a local Pinot Gris which is massively more impressive / interesting, albeit it is very much more a Pinot Grigio style, but in what Pinot Grigio ought to be but so very rarely is.

Thus I hate these faux awards with a passion, but sometimes the effects can be positive.

mjs wrote:Perhaps some of you like me get mail out from The Real Review (Huon Hooke, Bob Campbell etc). I see that they have just released a so called Top Wineries of Australia List.

[url]https://www.therealreview.com/2020/06/12/the ... alia-2020/[/url]

Admirable, but so flawed, as it is just a measure of wineries on the basis of wines they have submitted to The Real Review for review. What should "Top Wineries" actually mean, rather than just marketing bs for a web site?

I'm guessing your top 10 would be different then?

What about yours?
Grosset and Jim Barry for starters
Cheers Craig

There's a lot of bitching and moaning going on here, however it's Huon's list, and it's quite likely that he has tasted far more recent release wines than anyone posting here.

Furthermore, how is Huon supposed to include wines from wineries that he hasn't tasted recently? Make a guesstimate?

No one has drunk every wine made in Australia. So to this end it's impossible to make an "objective" list. However, anyone is entitled to make a list, and Huon tastes more than enough to publish one (whether or not one is in agreement with it).

FYI: I don't subscribe to Real Review, and have never been a subscriber.

Happy to see other people's top 10 list.

phillisc wrote:What about yours?
Grosset and Jim Barry for starters
Cheers Craig

nice try
I'll go back over my last 12 months and come up with my list and post here.

As tarija said it is all well and good to denigrate it, there are not many ways to make it better. Some may say the Langtons one is the best case scenario in letting the secondary market decide how popular/good a wine is (and therefore a winery?) but for me this tends to overlook a winery in general for consistency across their range.

For me and my tastes (at the moment)...loosely ordered. If any of the winemakers want to send me wines to ensure their inclusion, please let me know

Rockford
Lakes Folly
Wendouree
Tyrrells
Wynns
Giaconda
Ochota Barrels
Clonakilla
Seppelt
Moss Wood

Hi Tarija
We may not be miles apart, but there are steps that could be taken

e.g.
- Don't exclude wineries where their wines weren't sent to the organisation, if Huon, Bob etc. have tasted them elsewhere. If making claims about 'the best', then don't ignore stuff they've tasted themselves.
- Where there is a high profile winery that hasn't supplied wines (or never supplies wines e.g Wendouree), and the critics haven't tasted them recently, then be very obvious about calling out these 'other contenders not rated'. If we did a poll here of top Aussie wineries, I reckon Wendouree would be in the overall top 10. The tendency is not to mention those not playing ball, as the publishing organisation are pressing as many wineries to take part, so acknowledging those that don't feels like it harms their business model.

No argument at all from me if his list is his list, based on his experiences (and not just his experiences under the umbrella of this organisation)... or he says it's his favourite wineries taking part, which is just as reasonable.

Regards
Ian

The algorithm may be OK, and they're decent enough tasters, but it's a biased sample, as all have pointed out. (Perhaps they should consider a career switch to Road Safety Experts?) And since they claim to use the last 24 months of data, it might even be a bit vintage-dependent. I only saw the extract of the top 52 published in the Fairfax Good Weekend liftout and noted that Leeuwin, Grosset, Rockford, Moss Wood, for example were absent - which I assume reflected wines not submitted. And with three Hunter wineries in the top 10 (+ a 4th from NSW) but just two from SA, I could hear the snorts of derision from south and west of Sydney! The biggest laugh I got was reading that Cullen knocked Penfolds off No 1 spot, only to find that Penfolds were now at No 31. That's a heck of a fall!
Langtons is probably the most 'objective' ranking of wines, although it has some self-imposed bias as well.

Perhaps a bottle of 111A wasn't forthcoming
Cheers Craig

deleted

Very sensible indeed Sean, calibrates well with my own thinking and thoughts about a total experience, not just 'trophy hunter' exhibits being sent for review, in the hope of a favorable write up/position. Can't understand wine scribes 'feeling the pressure' about having to have a top ten this, a top ten that.
Cheers Craig

Wait, I agree with some of the criticisms above but I can't accept cellar door experience, service, ambience, etc., as a measure. It ought not be part of a top winery of the year rating since it involves things other than the quality of the wine. Most people would assume that a "top winery" rating would involve the quality of wine and not a winery experience. If I saw a bottle of wine on a store shelf with a gold sticker alluding to a "Winery of the Year" award, or some such thing, I would expect that the winery won it for their wines (of course not necessarily for the bottle in my hand) and not for the ambience of the cellar door, the politeness of their staff, the size of their pours or their parking lot and toilet. I remember a wonderful cellar door experience in Mudgee, and if the teeming crowds were any indication, it would easily win a winery tourism award. However there wasn't a better than good wine in the entire range of white, red, and desert wines.

Mahmoud.

deleted

Sean wrote:Hi Mahmoud

Maybe that’s the difference between top 10 “winery” and top 10 “wine”?

Not just the cellar door experience, other things too.

ie. range of wines, museum wines, etc. A reason why we might stick with a winery (like Tahbilk) over a longer period of time for example.

I agree. Best cellar door experience isn’t everything. The wines have to impress you and make you want them again and again too.

On my trip to South Australia last year, I had terrific winery experiences at Chapel Hill, Coriole, Petaluma, Bird in Hand, Hahndorf Hill, Henschke, Turkey Flat and others that obviously didn’t make my Top 10 this time.

Hence the wider criteria I came up with, and just my own take on this.

Just thinking about it, someone who buys a lot of imported wine and visiting the winery is less a factor for them (or unlikely to occur) might have a different criteria I suppose. Or those who are on mailing lists or wine club members and that’s the basis for much of their wine buying...

I had a max 4 points for wine quality and interest factor. So I guess for some that is everything and it should be max 10 points. We are all just wine critics then, aren’t we?

Or it might be surprising to apply this criteria I’ve suggested and see how it rolls.

No worries Sean, I understand what you mean. You're right, I'm in Canada and of course the criteria you include is not something that applies to me. That's fair enough, however when the Australian Wine Revue ranks the Top Wineries of Australia I think they are referring to the quality of the wines.

Mahmoud.

I have nothing against anyone making a Top XXX list from their own subjective views, but once you put it as part of the marketing scheme to get people to pay money for your views and to get wineries to send you their wine in return for the rights to put your sticker on their bottles, your certificate on their walls etc it becomes inherently too cosy ...

sjw_11 wrote:I have nothing against anyone making a Top XXX list from their own subjective views, but once you put it as part of the marketing scheme to get people to pay money for your views and to get wineries to send you their wine in return for the rights to put your sticker on their bottles, your certificate on their walls etc it becomes inherently too cosy ...

It is a tough one. On the one hand I get that the main commercial benefactors of a good positioning in a show or a publication or a ranking or a list are the wineries, so it makes sense that they bear some of the cost. I also get that if a winery chooses not to enter then they shouldn't get free ride while other wineries pay.

I also understand that wineries can't afford and don't wish to enter, pay subscriptions, fees, samples to every Tom, Dick and Harry that decides to set themselves up as an expert mouthpiece on wine. In New Zealand at least there seems to be more wine writers and sources of "authority" than wine drinkers.

But, if the result is a subset of wineries (and any format of wine evaluation by anyone is), then you need to be careful on how you word and promote the award. It can't be seen as absolute or definitive. It needs to be made clear that it is a "pay for entry" award, a "by invitation" award or whatever

Craig(NZ) wrote:

sjw_11 wrote:I have nothing against anyone making a Top XXX list from their own subjective views, but once you put it as part of the marketing scheme to get people to pay money for your views and to get wineries to send you their wine in return for the rights to put your sticker on their bottles, your certificate on their walls etc it becomes inherently too cosy ...

It is a tough one. On the one hand I get that the main commercial benefactors of a good positioning in a show or a publication or a ranking or a list are the wineries, so it makes sense that they bear some of the cost. I also get that if a winery chooses not to enter then they shouldn't get free ride while other wineries pay.

I also understand that wineries can't afford and don't wish to enter, pay subscriptions, fees, samples to every Tom, Dick and Harry that decides to set themselves up as an expert mouthpiece on wine. In New Zealand at least there seems to be more wine writers and sources of "authority" than wine drinkers.

But, if the result is a subset of wineries (and any format of wine evaluation by anyone is), then you need to be careful on how you word and promote the award. It can't be seen as absolute or definitive. It needs to be made clear that it is a "pay for entry" award, a "by invitation" award or whatever

+1 Craig.
I don't think I could've written a better response to this thread.
You've summarised perfectly (in my mind) what's going on here.