Well, we recently had our first exposure to entering a wine show, and the little 'quirks' of the wine judging system.
Our
One Bunch Pinot 2009 was entered in the 2011 Tasmanian Wine Show, with interesting results...
Firstly, I need to point out that this post is
not an exercise in thumb-sucking, nor is it intended as a rant about wine shows. It is merely an observation that we are all indeed human.
OBP2009 was tasted at number four in its class. We soon found out the Chairman's Selection wine and gold medal winner was number three in that line up. What neither show organisers or myself knew, was the same wine as our OBP2009 had been placed in the line up as wine number two!
I must clarify this point - it is common knowledge that our 2009 and 2010 vintages were lost. Our winemaker, as well as sourcing fruit for us to replace 2010, kindly offered us some of his own 2009 wine (already released under his own label), to get our label off the ground. I did not think to ask him if he was showing his wine in the 2010 wine show, which of course he would be doing. Thus, the same wine was shown twice.
The outcome?
Wine number two was awarded a high silver by the three judges. One Judge scored it a gold, with the average score bringing down just under the 18.5 points from 20 needed for that golden sticker on your bottle. I have to say this is a result to be pleased with!
Wine number three, the Hazards Ale Trophy winner, was Chairman's Selection for the show and a gold medal winner.
Wine number four averaged 15 points, half a point short of a bronze medal. Bupkis.
This happened recently with a Pinot Noir that won Best Pinot Noir in Show trophy in Perth, 2010 (plus 3 gold medals in the same year), only to pick up a bronze at the Hobart Wine Show. Whilst terribly disappointing, it can be understood how different judges, on different days, can score a wine quite differently.
However, to score the same wine so markedly different within one show, within two bottles of each other, is poignant. Perhaps it all comes down to timing - point number one being don't get judged after a trophy winner! (Haha! Ok ok...there's no helping that one...).
Perhaps our wine shows are too fast paced? If judges are plowing through hundreds of wines in a day, perhaps pallet fatigue is going to play a part (one would not think it would hit as early as wine four, however). Secondly, to get through that many wines in a day, I imagine one must judge at a fairly speedy pace. If a wine is judged a high silver, then nothing after a trophy winner, are judges' pallets being cleansed/rested sufficiently between tastings?
Again I must stress that I am not spitting the dummy here - for I know that in another wine show, we may receive a silver, maybe a gold. Indeed, we just received some great scores from the boys at
Pinot Unearthed - a high silver and a couple of bronze.
As the number of wines at each show grows, and the sphere of influence that medals, trophies and wine writers (oft present as show judges) have over the buying public, I think it is important to remember the human element of wine shows. Results are variable. Results are inconsistent. One can see wines highly praised in wine books, then receive nothing from the same writer in the next wine show.
There can be no substitute to trying a wine yourself, and deciding if
you like it, or not.
