The Auswine Forum

I didn't reply to Ratcatcher's original post, as I thought my general thoughts were covered by the responses. It did however make me think of another couple of related issues which I thought could use a follow-up post.

I think the major criticism of the big boys was a drop in QPR over the years of old favourites as resources have been expanded/stretched and marketing increased.

Thnking of that issue I've noticed a bit of a pattern that's not only seen in the big boys lines, but also is starting to show up in some small/medium sized producers. The drop in QPR of a traditionally cheap/mid range wine coincidentally seems to occur with the introduction of a flagship wine that pulls the price up, and a lower rung wine to fill the lower space.

These lower rung wines (and quite often the original favourites that have climbed the pricing ladder) are increasingly containing fruit that comes from anywhere, bringing up a totally different issue - do our disclosure laws need updating? Given the massive impact that a small amount of Viognier can have on a wine (even <2%) and what seems to be a growing lack of genuine regionality, is the <15% non-disclosure rule way too generous and need to be cut to say 10%. I'm amazed at how some producers can still completely deny that a particular source produces grapes for a wine because it's <15% of the content.

Cheers
Ian

Do I think the 15% is generous? yes, I think it's way too generous as is 10%. However, I drink what's in the bottle and I'm not really fussed about the addition of other varieties/regions/vintages if what I'm drinking is good but it would be nice to know, even if it's on the back label.

Do I think reducing the threshold to say 5% will bring truer label declarations? I doubt it, because who's going to be checking anyway?

On the Viognier poser, I reckon there's a number of notable Shiraz I've tried recently that have a small amount added without declaring it on the label.

Good point Ian about single label small producers who introduce a flagship wine, it must affect the quality of the standard label but often not noticeably. A couple I can think of whose standard label has got better despite the introduction of a flagship are Balnaves and Katnook.

BTW only just got what your username means. n4sir. Doh!

Don't know if this is the sort of thing you are getting at but I'm mightily pi$$ed off with the Penfolds ploy of lifting St Henri and Magill from $50 - $60 wines up to $75 - $100 wines and also bumping up the price of 389 and 407 to a level beyond my normal buying range and filling in the gaps with the Thomas Hyland range so we plebs can still believe we are drinking a real Penfolds wine without "stooping" to Koonunga Hill (which has reportedly also dropped off in quality).

I used to buy 28, 128, 407 and 389 regularly and St Henri for special occasions. Now I would have to buy Thomas Hyland regularly and buy 389 / 407 for special occasions. (Which I actually don't do - because I can find better or more interesting wines at lower price points from other producers)

I reckon this move more than anything else will come back to bite Southcorp as far as losing loyal customers. I don't buy Penfolds any more on principle because of these actions.

Don't know if this is the sort of thing you are getting at but I'm mightily pi$$ed off with the Penfolds ploy

Yes Penfolds example is the classic one we all think of, but has anyone noticed how many smaller producers are seemingly going down the same kind of path?

d'Arenberg, Yalumba, Leasingham, Taylors of Clare, Katnook Estate, Tintara, Orlando, Leconfield, Jim Barry all off the top of my head have come up with new flagships and/or discounted labels, and in most cases the "standard" wine price has increased. From my own experiences and comments off this forum already there have been mixed results regarding the QPR with these new introductions.

It was interesting to get Nayan's take on this at the dinner on Friday night; apparently this kind of marketing stategy has been taught by just the one person but fairly widely, and it's growing adoption isn't much of a surprise to him.

Cheers
Ian

Ian, Leconfield haven't changed anything, they have merely rebranded the Hamilton Group Synergy label as a Leconfield.

Synergy is still a blend of the two regions I believe and if anything has gone up in quality, as has the main labels, due to better viticulture and in no small part due to the talents of Paul Gordon who took over the group winemaking reins in 2002.

If anyone hasn't looked at Leconfield in a while, might be a good time to do so. They've had a couple of wines rate highly at Blacktongues in the past year.

Ian, Leconfield haven't changed anything, they have merely rebranded the Hamilton Group Synergy label as a Leconfield.

Synergy is still a blend of the two regions I believe and if anything has gone up in quality, as has the main labels, due to better viticulture and in no small part due to the talents of Paul Gordon who took over the group winemaking reins in 2002

I admit Leconfield isn't probably the best example in this case - the quality of the main labels haven't dropped off and the price has been relatively stable. I was unimpressed with the Synergy wines when I tried them last year, although this could be more related to the 2003 vintage than the quality of the sources. I'm glad I never tried the old Hamilton Group efforts if this is in fact an increase in quality of the label!

d'Arenberg is an unusual one too. The quality of the Custodian Grenache dropped like a stone after the introduction of the Stump Jump, so much that they've dropped the price and changed the label from one of their premium single varietals to an equal of the standard d'Arry/Footbolt/High Trellis range. It's old spot has since been taken by other Grenache and GSM releases.

Cheers
Ian