The Auswine Forum

Before the results come out, I'll have a punt that there will be more shock horror as to the wines that do well....Jimmy Watson Trophy included.

Its just that the style is becoming dominated by what I call the Wahgunyah style, very soft tannins, sweet fruit (if not a touch actual sweet) light-medium weight, perhaps a touch herbaceous and green and with the faintest touch of premature ageing (micro-ox) style. A little oak but in balance for a softy. Griffith also does a fair go at this style.

The UK market seems to love this style, and the English international judges have pushed it hard. Now they're complaining that they want our bigger better stuff, that Aus wines are synonomous with cheap soft wines.
To which I say
"

[b]You want our good wines----You can't handle our good wines

[/b]--Apologies to Lt Colonel Jessup.

Its really strange to me as the premium US market wants bigger riper fuller styles, happily pays for it, and is a better market for us.
Yet these styles are penalised in the show. "Too big too extracted too much fruit too tannic etc".....which is a shame for the Jimmy watson as that was exactly the sort of wine Watsons were trying to source for their winebar.

Its also a problem in that the Chairman of Judges in Melbourne (Chris Pfeiffer) is effectively the only palate. He invites judges with similar palates, can exclude judges that don't perform to his expectations, has the final say on all medals and trophies, and has the right to exclude any wine he chooses.

So if the Melbourne Wine show is hijacked by the UK wine buyers and their soft Wahgunyah style, perhaps it will be time to replace the COJ.
Bill Chambers (the previous COJ) would have never gone along with this style.

Its just bad for Australian wine.

And yes I hope I'm truly deeply and totally wrong!
Lets see.

Cheers
Smithy

Andrew,

An interesting topic; it's quite possible it will rival the recent Winestate thread for length. I will have more to say on this topic later when I have time, but in reality, in the scheme of things, the problem is a very small one; your winery is located in the wrong spot. Just moved it a few kilometres to the other side of the Murray and then you can start bitching about those Mexicans south of the border.

You already have a NSW area code on your phone so you are half way there.

Smithy
Whether the UK market "loves" the style you describe is maybe stretching it. It's successful, but so are Starbucks & McDonald's. What you've decribed to me sounds like the blatantly commercial wines targeted at the masses shopping in the super(sic)markets.

I'm not sure which English internatioanl judges push this style hard. I'd doubt that Johnson, Robinson or Broadbent or any of the other "heavyweights" would. If it's Malcolm Gluck then ignore him as he prefers Cava to Krug If it's the IWC, then ignore as well, as it's o lottery of mostly low-mid range wines. If it's the newspapers, then they can safely be ignored as well, as they're mostly supermarket fodder (blame the editors largely, but the writers should be pretty ashamed of the positive write-ups they give industrial wines).

I'd be surprised if what you describe would win favour with a serious wine judge - however if Rosemount diamond label cabernet-shiraz wins the big gong then I'll take it back!

Ian

Andrew,

In the thread “"Big reds are just prostituting yourself for a buck&quo” you said

“All you people that enjoy big reds-- apparently your wrong too. The fact of the matter is that ripe fruit gives you a different flavour profile. as grapes go through 3 phases (green, red and then black). I like making wines with black red fruit tones with associated dark fruits dark chocolate and incredible depth with softer tannins. I'm heading to the Dark Side.

I can't believe the venom that some people show to makers of bigger red styles. Is it jealousy or a passion to protect their own styles?"

In this post you say

“Its also a problem in that the Chairman of Judges in Melbourne (Chris Pfeiffer) is effectively the only palate. He invites judges with similar palates, can exclude judges that don't perform to his expectations, has the final say on all medals and trophies, and has the right to exclude any wine he chooses.

So if the Melbourne Wine show is hijacked by the UK wine buyers and their soft Wahgunyah style, perhaps it will be time to replace the COJ.”

After that comment Chris Pfeiffer could possibly be justified in saying “I can't believe the venom that some people show to makers of softer, more elegant, red styles. Is it jealousy or a passion to protect their own styles?

Now to put this in perspective, I am don’t particularly like “very soft tannins, sweet fruit ... light-medium weight, perhaps a touch herbaceous .... with the faintest touch of .... micro-ox” either, but everyone is entitled to like, produce and drink the style they most enjoy.

If you think this is a bad move for the UK market, I don't particularly like the Pepsification” of wine either, but there is a big market out there for it and all producers are doing is catering to market demand. Luckily, there are many different markets and many different wine styles that are enjoyed by different people. The market is big enough for all of them.

As far as the particular stylistic direction at wine shows are concerned, many wineries have found themselves to have a style that is out of favour with the judges. It's a fact of life, and a moving target. In the early 80s, it was lean and green, in the mid-90s huge blockbuster reds that were dominated by massive amounts of American oak, and now it is heading a more refined direction. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of individual taste and as we are all different, there is room in the market for all styles.

Ric

Its not venom or jealousy. I haven't accused anyone of prostitution, or chasing the quick buck. I appreciate many many styles and believe we all have the right to enjoy whatever style we like.

However,I don't determine the style on so many of our Aussie wines through the show ring. Chris does as chairman of judges in Melbourne.
Perhaps the job should be rotated more often to address these issues.

I am also referring to quite a serious issue as the softer reay to drink style is becoming what brand Australia is seen as in the UK press, they bag it, yet in a way they asked for it. Especially the chains of supermarkets.

I love the term Pepsification by the way.
Like I say
I am the last of the deep southern gentlemen, so cheap shots are not what I'm about.

Cheers
Smithy

One would hope that wine shows (or any venue where wines are compared) are done in a manner that allows a competent and unfettered analysis. The latitude that the chairman appears to have (see Smithy's initial post) suggests that the Melbourne show could be less independent that most casual observers might assume.

The suggestion that the USA and UK prefer different styles is an interesting topic and it would be educational to see the full lists of Aussie wines that are popular in each country. It would be particularly interesting to see what wines are sold exclusively in the respective markets. Given what I've been tasting over the last few months it is quite reasonable to come to the conclusion that the USA does favor the "bigger riper fuller styles", and not just from Oz (i.e Spain, Italy). The style is also common in wines made in the US. Much of it seems dominated by wines expressiing pronounced American oak flavors, and to some extent I'm getting a little tired of the formula. I'm actually looking for wines done in French oak to give my palate a rest from the style.

But as usual its a live and learn situation. I tasted California Cabernets last Saturday. This was done essentially blind (all I knew was that one wine would be the 2001 Silver Oak CS) and was quite surprised to find that the wine I preferred was the St Francis Cab at $15/bt while the Silver Oak (at $55/bt) was.........well it didn't even look, smell or taste like a Cabernet. The former sees both American and French oak while the latter gets 50% old and new American oak. The major difference in the wines is, of course, the richness of the riper style of the St Francis. While I was tasting some other wines three people joined me (none of them wine geeks) and they tasted the Cabs knowing exacty what the wines were. Without me contributing any comments they all prefered the St Fancis but also the Silver Oak, more or less agreeing that those two were the two best in the line-up. A wine they did not like was the Burgess Cellars, a wine I placed as runner-up to the St Francis - the earthy, Barnyard aromas might have put them off. But the lesson here is that the "American palate" (from this very small sample) can be diverse in its preferences. Now whether they were showing their preference based on price is debatable, but the St Fancis was the least expensive wine so they may have been ignoring price. I guess I should have asked!

Mike

smithy wrote:8)
....................
Its also a problem in that the Chairman of Judges in Melbourne (Chris Pfeiffer) is effectively the only palate. He invites judges with similar palates, can exclude judges that don't perform to his expectations, has the final say on all medals and trophies, and has the right to exclude any wine he chooses.

....................
Cheers
Smithy

"Once, I had to taste so many wines at a show, the tannins reacted with the proteins in my mouth and my lips peeled," was how Judging chairman Chris Pfeiffer described wine judging. Age article.

Smithy, he's not talking about your wines, is he?

Mike

Two things: it's really only winemakers who care about show results anyway. In general, with some small scale exceptions, the wine drinking public doesn't give two hoots about wine show results. So what happens in Melbourne is largely immaterial anyway.

Secondly, the melbourne show has always been a joke. So there'll be no real surprise when it is again this year. But then again, I don't believe in the show system at all - and I can't see that I ever will - so maybe I should shut my trap.

Oh, and what the hell, I'll try a third thing too: I have no problem with any wine judge pushing a particular style. If I was a judge, which of course I never would be, I reckon I'd probably do the same thing.

Campbell.

GEOFF MERRIL RESERVE SHIRAZ HAS WON THE JIMMY WATSON

What Vintage? Is it released yet?

GEOFF MERRIL RESERVE SHIRAZ HAS WON THE JIMMY WATSON

Anonymous wrote:What Vintage?

Geoff Merrill Wines: Reserve Shiraz 2004

duplicate post

does anyone know if this is the "Henley", or whether he has a lower level reserve shiraz?

It is the Reserve Shiraz, not the Henley. Usually released with 4-6 years bottle age.

Cheers

Anonymous wrote:GEOFF MERRIL RESERVE SHIRAZ HAS WON THE JIMMY WATSON

So better than Block 42 2004 then?

Anonymous wrote: So better than Block 42 2004 then?

Yep, I'm still laughing.

The JWT is such a joke but it's what the Melb Show hangs it's hat on. Is it the industry, the press, the wine drinking public that keeps the JWT thing alive?

707 wrote:

Anonymous wrote: So better than Block 42 2004 then?

Yep, I'm still laughing.

The JWT is such a joke but it's what the Melb Show hangs it's hat on. Is it the industry, the press, the wine drinking public that keeps the JWT thing alive?

Was the Block 42 entered? I see the 707 in the Cab class.

It is interesting to look through the results of the show as it gives you an idea of what is and is not entered. I'd say that a lot of wines that forum members might favor are not in the lists.

Mike