Each year as the wine show season rolls around, the wine show critics make an appearance. Most detractors point out the perceived deficiencies and limitations of the method of scoring wine in the shows, though they seldom seem to offer any actual constructive alternatives.
This time round however it is Geoff Kelly, who has taken a different angle. On his website he claims that New Zealand’s wine shows are being subverted by commercial interests, “with the unstated goal of the sale of more wine”. The gist of his article (
http://geoffkellywinereviews.co.nz/index.php?ArticleID=164) is that New Zealand shows are becoming more commercial, are too influenced by overseas judgings (particularly English) and that we should all remember judging has its roots in agricultural shows, where the goal was to ‘improve the breed’. Kelly also thinks there is a danger that commercially/consumer-oriented wine shows are rewarding out of balance and often faulty wines (reduction and VA singled out) and so mislead the consumers as to which wines really are the best and risk consumers becoming disenchanted. Kelly maintains an improvement in standards is urgently needed so that a medal from the ‘non-commercial’ shows (i.e. the Air NZ and Royal Easter shows, evidently) does indeed mean something, though I am still unsure as to what that ‘something’ is intended to be (and moreover this does seem to imply that medals from these shows currently don’t mean much at all).
Hmmmm. Though I normally enjoy Geoff’s reasoned albeit idiosyncratic approach, this line of argument seems to me to be a little disingenuous at best. However romantic or esoteric an approach one might like to take about the wine industry, the goal of most (surely all?) producers is to sell their wine and see it enjoyed by as many people as possible. I daresay it is also the only reason for which the majority of producers enter shows. So there is no getting away from the commercial driver of the shows. Whether producers sell medal winning wines direct through the organisers of the shows (e.g. Liquorland) or through their usual agents after a successful result as with the Air NZ or Royal Easter Wine shows seems to me to be splitting hairs, and either way, this commercial imperative makes not a shred of difference as to how the actual medals are decided by the judges.
Regardless of the entity that owns/organises/promotes any major New Zealand wine show, the actual judging process for all is remarkably similar, as is the pool of judges used. The wines are all judged double blind and are assessed by a mixture of senior and associate judges, many of whom have extensive experience in a wide range of industry disciplines and taste widely across both local and international wines. At most shows there are usually a couple of international judges who further add to the depth of experience and appreciation of different styles. Any potential golds or high silvers are tasted at least two to three times and then given a final assessment by the chief of judges. Therefore, how the wines are finally promoted or sold at the end of it all is really ultimately irrelevant.
The results for any year’s collection of shows throws up a number of the same wines on a regular basis, which seems to belie the claims that any one show gives superior results to another. Any inconsistency can mostly be put down to the generally acknowledged evidence from studies that the same group of judges given the same group of wines on a different day will usually end up with a different set of winning wines. After all, any show’s results is only the yield of how a set of wines looked on the day. As we all know, wines and palates vary from day to day and judging is nothing if not an attempt to make the subjective as objective as possible. And this is before one even brings into account personal preference of wines. Patently, it is a far from scientific process when the results are not replicable. So trying to suggest that one philosophical approach to a show is better than another one is on shaky ground indeed. There is no way of saying that one show’s results are truer, better or less ‘misleading’ than another one's.
So, damn one wine show, damn them all. There is however a fair wind behind the argument that shows do tend to reward particular types of wines, namely bolder and more upfront styles (in other words, a more ‘commercial’ style – in itself laughable when Chateau d’Yquem is as commercial as Yellow Tail given both are intended as consumer products for sale). But this tendency is more a reflection of the nature of shows to have judges tasting scores of wines in a day than any commercial impetus. Few if any faulty wines find their way into the actual medal tally, and to be honest I was amused to see Geoff’s assertions that VA and reduction are more tolerated here and in Australia as if anything, I think Australasian judges (and consumers) are more demanding of squeaky clean wines than many of their international fellows. The rewarding of bold styles is not necessarily a bad thing - it is a little like reading the notes of a wine critic - with time you learn whether your own palate is aligned with their favourite styles of wine or not. However, most shows still throw up a fairly wide range of wines, some of which in hindsight possibly do only look good on the day, but most people will find something to like and indeed, some very delicious wines do emerge each year.
So, what are the issues? The emphasis on show results and golds in particular and their trumpeting as the gospel truth says as much about the consumer’s need for reassurance and lack of confidence and understanding of their own palates as it does about the competitiveness of the industry and desire to have an easy hook to lure in customers, and more in total than anything about the way in which the shows are actually judged. The sheer number of wines on offer, the fact that so many wines are viewed by their own producers as commodities (let alone show directors) coupled with the ever-increasing desire of consumers to have upfront, fruity, drink-within-two-hours-of-purchase-wines conspires to make the lot of even the most fastidious show judge an invidious one. It is easy when looking at the shortcomings of shows to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is important to remember that New Zealand is still a relatively young industry and such shows form a large part of peer review, provide new producers with an opportunity to get a foot in the door of a busy marketplace should they get a ‘good’ result and as Jane mentioned to in a recent post on the Hawke’s Bay Show, they can give a good snapshot of how vintages and the industry as a whole are looking. I can’t help but feel we would all be better served by genuine, thoughtful and practical attempts to improve New Zealand’s woeful wine culture than by sniping at easy targets such as wine shows.
(EJ)
Browse articles by author or topic